Univenity  of  California  •  Berkeley 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

Microsoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/churchstateissueOOreasrich 


r 


"% 


LATE  MANIFESTO 
IN  POLITICS. 


Praotieal  WcK'ng  of  "Counsel" 


IN  RELATION  TO 


-    ii 


Gi^il  and    Religious   Ciber1|r  in  U^ab. 


"That  this  Nation,  under  God,  shall  have  a  new  birth  of  Freedom, 
and  that  Government  of  the  People,  by  the  People,  for  the  People,  shall 
not  perish  from  the  Earth. — Abrahain  Lincoln. 


PRICE,  25  CENTS. 


ji^.y^  i.a''— jg^~-jir— y-:;^ 


SALT  LAKE  CITY,  UTAH, 
Dec.  22nd,  1898. 


-^~^--^-^-T-^ 


7 


7^ 


/^       /^7  :2. 


:.  2r 


■«-ji 


CHURCH  AND  STATE 


THE  ISSUE  OF 


CIVIL  AND  Religious  Liberty 


IN  UTAH. 


A  TESTIMONIAL    IN   BEHALF    OF   CIVIL   LIBERTY  AND  THE 
AMERICAN  STATE  AS  SEPARATE  FROM  THE  CHURCH, 
AND  DEDICATED   TO  THE  FRIENDS  OF  FREE- 
DOM AND  TRUE  PROGRESS  IN  UTAH 
AND  ELSEWHERE 


BY 


Calvin  Reasoner. 


Render  unto  Caesar  the  things  that  are  Caesar's, 
And  to  God  the  things  that  are  God's. 

— yesus. 


SALT  LAKE  CITY,  UTAH, 
Dec.  15th,  1896, 


PKEFAOE. 


m/f 


The  little  book  herewith  presented  to  the  public,  and 
especially  to  the  Mormon  people,  discusses  those  underlying 
principles  of  liberty  that  permeate  the  parties  and  shape  the 
policies  of  a  free  governing  people.  While  the  book  is  political 
in  its  texture,  its  arguments  and  illustrations  are  designed  to* 
have  no  partisan  or  sectarian  application.  Its  appeal  is  ad- 
dressed to  intelligent  minds  and  honest  hearts  of  all  creeds  and 
persuasions. 

The  case  of  Moses  Thatcher  is  presented  at  considerable 
length,  but  only  as  an  illustration  of  the  practical  working  and 
results  of  the  policy  and  discipline  of  the  Mormon  priesthood 
organization  under  the  political  manifesto  recently  promulgated. 
And  in  order  to  give  a  comprehensive  view  of  the  issue,  his  late 
deposition  from  all  priestly  offices  by  his  ecclesiastical  quorum 
and  his  political  record  for  a  number  of  years  past  have  been 
selected  for  presentation,  for  the  reason  that  they  are  matters 
of  present  interest,  they  are  most  extensively  before  the  people 
in  printed  form,  and  throughout  their  origin,  progress  and  cul- 
mination they  are  more  pertinent  than  any  other  as  illustrations 
of  the  meaning  and  application  of  vital  principles  herein  dis- 
cussed. 

There  is  no  intention  to  vindicate  Moses  Thatcher  person- 
ally in  these  pages.  So  far  as  his  official  and  political  record 
may  have  an  appearance  of  approval,  it  is  the  reflection  of 
general  political  principles  in  their  application  to  a  concrete 
case.  What  is  said  herein  is  said,  not  by  him,  and  only  in  a 
subordinate  way  is  anything  said  for  him.  The  real  truth  is 
that  nothing  is  said  by  him  or  for  him;  but  his  case  is  used  as 
an  object  lesson  to  carry  thoughts  of  the  deepest  importance  to 
the  people  of  Utah  and  the  whole  country. 

Concerning  the  fundamental  question  raised  in  this  book — 
the  relation  of  church  and  state — there  is  a  widespread  misap- 
prehension of  a  character  similar  to  that  presented  in  a  well- 
written  and  candid  letter  by  Judge  Edwin  G.  Woolley  in 
the  Tribune,  December  6,  1896.  So  far  as  the  writer  defends 
the  proceedure  of  Church  discipline  in  the  case  of  Moses 
Thatcher  we  make  no  rejoinder;  for  this  book  is  not  concerned 


\)  \ 

4  THE   LATE    MANIFESTO   IN   POLITICS. 

with  matters  purely  ecclesiastical.  But  in  discussing  the  politi- 
<;al  side  of  the  controversy  raised  against  Moses  Thatcher  by 
the  Deseret  News,  Judge  Woolley  is  wholly  unconscious  that 
there  is  a  state  to  be  encroached  upon  by  the  Church;  he 
could  but  make  the  same  argument  if  the  State  were  absolutely 
within  the  Church  as  an  ecclesiastical  function.  He  fails  to 
apprehend  that  the  occasion  of  contention  is  that  the  Church 
abandons  its  true  sphere  and  usurps  political  authority  when  it 
•enjoins  "counsel"  as  a  condition  precedent  to  nominations  and 
elections  to  civil  offices.  When  Judge  Woolley  finds  that  there 
is  such  a  thing  as  a  State  we  shall  be  pleased  to  have  him  define 
it  in  a  way  that  will  show  it  incapable  of  being  absorbed  by  the 
rule  of  "counsel." 

And  it  may  be  further  said  in  behalf  of  the  writer  of  these 
pages,  that  as  in  times  past  he  has  said  and  done  and  written 
many  things  in  kindly  regard  for  the  Mormon  people,  because 
it  was  deemed  to  be  their  due;  so  in  this  book,  waiving  personal 
considerations,  the  truth  is  sought  to  be  presented  and  urged, 
not  in  any  particular  interest,  but  in  behalf  of  humanity  at 
large  and  the  progress  of  the  race. 

Mankind  is  struggling  up  into  the  light  of  God  and  a 
higher  civilization;  and  the  race  is  deeply  concerned  with  what- 
ever promotes  or  impedes  its  progress.  No  true  man  can  refuse 
to  receive  the  truth  from  any  quarter;  neither  can  he  be  grieved 
when  present  customs  and  beliefs  are  shown  to  be  erroneous. 
It  is  only  as  the  present  is  passed  away  that  the  future  glory  is 
revealed. 

Calvin  Eeasoner. 

Salt  Lake  City,  Utah,  Dec.  15,  1896. 


CHA.PTER  FIRST, 


MOSES  THATCHEE'S  OFFENSE. 

The  following  pages  present,  by  way  of  illustration,  the 
case  of  Moses  Thatcher  in  relation  to  the  recently  adopted  rule 
of  the  Mormon  Church,  and  the  disciplinary  action  of  the  Quor- 
um of  Apostles  deposing  him  from  the  apostolic  office  and  other 
priestly  functions,  in  conformity  with  the  spirit  and  require- 
ments of  said  rule  as  embodied  in  the  Manifesto  concerning 
"counsel"  which  was  promulgated  during  the  Conference  of 
last  April. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  the  action  taken  by  Mr. 
Thatcher  is  not  without  its  tragic  element;  for  with  his  fidel- 
ity to  a  sense  of  duty  he  is  compelled  to  relinquish  positions 
of  honor  and  usefulness  which  he  cherished  as  the  honest  fruit- 
age and  well  earned  recognition  of  long  years  of  earnest  labor 
and  generous  sacrifice  in  the  service  of  his  Church.  Further- 
more in  his  ecclesiastical  humiliation,  he  contemplates  nothing 
less  than  genuine  faithfulness  in  the  fellowship  and  brother- 
hood of  Christ,  realizing  that  service  is  ministry,  and  that  to 
be  greatest  of  all  is  to  be  servant  of  all. 

In  order  that  people  who  have  not  kept  themselves  fully 
informed  on  current  events,  and  especially  those  living  outside 
the  state,  may  understand  the  nature  and  origin  of  matters  dis- 
cussed in  this  statement,  it  is  well  to  state  that  for  several  years 
there  has  been  more  or  less  friction  in  the  Mormon  church 
arising  out  of  the  political  conduct  of  some  of  its  leading  men. 
About  1890,  when  the  people  of  the  Territory  of  Utah  were  con- 
sidering the  question  of  dividing  on  national  party  lines  to  the 
exclusion  of  church  issues,  it  was  decided  by  the  governing 
officials  of  the  Mormon  Church  that  men  holding  the  higher 
orders  of  the  Mormon  priesthood  should  refrain  from  entering 
politics  personally,  lest  jealousies  and  ill  feeling  might  arise 
because  of  the  influential  positions  which  they  held  in  the 
Church.  Accordingly,  a  rule  was  promulgated  requiring  the 
several  higher  grades  of  Mormon  officials  to  decline  leadership 
in  the  political  parties. 


6  THE  LATE  MANIFESTO   IN   POLITICS. 

It  appears  that  this  rule  was  soon  disregarded  by  the  action 
and  counsel  of  the  same  governing  officials  in  the  Church;  and 
this  beeause  of  political  conditions  and  complications  wherein 
it  was  deemed  best,  in  order  to  promote  statehood  for  Utah,  to 
intervene  in  a  partisan  way,  so  that  the  Territory  might  show  up 
in  certain  political  colors,  thereby  to  secure  powerful  influence 
in  behalf  of  statehood  legislation.  In  keeping  with  this  policy, 
it  soon  transpired  that  high  officials  on  one  side  were 
"counseled"  to  go  forth  and  gather  in  the  political  harvest, 
while  officials  on  the  other  side  in  politics  were  "counseled"  to 
stay  at  home  and  hold  their  peace. 

Moses  Thatcher  took  the  view  that  when  the  rule  was  abro- 
gated for  one  or  more,  it  was  set  aside  for  all;  and  accordingly 
he  spoke  in  public  several  times,  and  in  all  his  addresses  never 
failed  to  urge  the  importance  of  a  complete  separation  of  church 
and  state.  His  course  gave  offense  to  some  of  his  brethren  on 
the  opposite  side  in  politics,  and  there  were  numerous  passages 
at  arms  politically;  and  there  was  also  a  good  deal  of  muttering 
in  Church  councils  where  his  conduct  came  up  with  reference  to 
ecclesiastical  disapprobation  and  censure.  But  the  whole  mat- 
ter was  covered  up  and  carried  over  as  a  thorn  in  the  flesh  until 
after  statehood  was  secured;  and  then  the  Church  authorities 
issued  an  address  of  great  length  and  prolixity,  embodying  a 
specific  rule  to  the  effect  that  all  officers  in  the  Church — and 
almost  all  male  members  are  officers — should  seek  "counsel"  be- 
fore accepting  any  political  nomination  or  any  secular  position. 
The  rule  itself  is  as  follows: 

First — We  unanimously  agree  to  and  promulgate  as  a  rule  that 
should  always  be  observed  in  the  Church  and  by  every  leading  oflBcial 
thereof,  that  before  accepting  any  position,  political  or  otherwise,  which 
would  interfere  with  the  proper  and  complete  discharge  of  his  ecclesias- 
tical duties,  and  before  accepting  a  nomination  or  entering  into  engage- 
ments to  perform  new  duties,  said  official  should  apply  to  the  proper 
authorities  and  learn  from  them  whether  he  can  consistently  with  the 
obligations  already  entered  into  with  the  Church  upon  assuming  his  office, 
take  upon  himself  the  added  duties  and  labors  and  responsibilities  of  the 
new  position. 

The  manifesto  containing  the  foregoing  rule  was  presented 
to  Moses  Thatcher  for  his  signature,  but  for  reasons  indicated 
in  the  following,  he  withheld  his  name. 


Salt  Lake  City,  April  6,' 
"At  about  12  o'clock  this  morning  two  of  the  quorum  of  the  Twelve 
called  on  me  and  presented  a  document  of  several  pages  for  my  considera- 
tion, wishing  me  to  sign  it  immediately,  so  that  they  could  take  it  away 


MOSES  THATCHER  S   OFFENSE.  i 

with  them.  On  my  request  for  more  time  to  consider  the  matter,  they 
agreed  to  leave  it  with  me  until  1:30  p.  m.,  at  which  time  I  returned  the 
document  with  the  following  reply : 

Salt  Lake  City,  April  6, 1896. 
President  Lorenzo  Snow  and  Apostle  Brigham  Young : 

Dear  Brethren — Having  carefully  read  the  document  left  with  me 
for  consideration,  I  herewith  return  it  as  per  promise.  There  is  much 
of  its  contents  that  I  could  heartily  endorse  by  signing,  but  there  are  other 
portions  which  I  cannot  endorse  without  stultification.  If  I  were  well  I 
might  view  this  most  serious  matter  in  another  light;  or  I  might  do  so  had 
I  more  time  to  consider  it.  But  as  it  is,  it  seems  that  I  must  determine 
now,  though  1  fully  realize  how  sadly  long  illness  has  weakened  me  in 
every  way.  In  the  future  the  Lord  may  enable  me  to  define  my  views  and 
acts  as  running  along  those  of  honor,  integrity  and  truth.  Now  I  can  only 
humbly  ask  that  you  act  according  to  the  Holy  Spirit's  dictation  as 
prompted  by  justice  and  brotherly  love  towards  your  fellow  laborer  in  the 
cause  of  our  Savior. 

Moses  Thatcher. 

The  daily  papers  made  the  whole  Gircumstance  a  matter  of 
news,  their  reports  exhibiting  the  first  flush  of  public  senti- 
ment.    The  Tribune  has  the  following  : 

The  session  of  the  Mormon  Church  Conference  yesterday  afternoon 
produced  a  stupendous  political  and  religious  sensation.  The  question 
that  stirred  Utah  last  fall  relative  to  the  candidacy  of  Church  officials  for 
political  office  was  revived  by  a  proclamation  in  which  the  rule  was 
reaffirmed  that  men  engaged  in  the  service  of  the  church  must  take  coun- 
sel— that  is,  ask  permission — of  the  Church  authorties  before  becoming 
candidates  for  political  positions.  The  address  in  itself  was  sufficient  to 
excite  the  most  profound  interst.  But  the  fact  that  it  was  subscribed  to 
by  B.  H.  Roberts  was  sensational.  It  did  not  bear  the  signature  of  Moses 
Thatcher,  who,  with  Roberts,  was  under  the  ban  last  fall  for  violating  the 
rule,  and  the  lack  of  his  name  on  the  document  was  the  cause  of  another 
development  that  was  astounding. 

When  the  names  of  Apostles  were  called  in  the  conference,  that  the 
people  might  vote  to  sustain  these  officials,  that  of  Moses  Thatcher  was 
not  announced.  The  failure  to  name  him  was  not  generally  noted  at  the 
time,  but  when  the  knowledge  of  the  omission  was  spread  through  the 
great  congregation  it  excited  most  intense  interest.  Many  were  at  first 
disposed  to  believe  that  the  omission  to  submit  Apostle  Thatcher's  name 
to  a  vote  was  due  to  a  mistake.  But  it  was  not  so.  The  omission  was 
deliberately  intentional.  The  address  had  been  taken  to  the  Apostle  about 
12  o'clock  by  President  Lorenzo  Snow  and  Apostle  Brigham  Young,  and 
he  had  been  requested  to  sign  it.  After  examining  it  he  had  declined  to 
do  so.  This  refusal  occurred  but  a  short  time  before  the  meeting  of  the 
Conference  in  the  afternoon,  but  the  intervening  time  was  long  enough  for 
the  Church  authorities  to  decide  to  withhold  bis  name  from  the  Conference. 
In  Mr.  Thatcher's  card,  given  above,  is  contained  the  statement  of  his 
reasons  for  not  signing  which  he  gave  to  the  bearers  of  the  address.  It  was 
upon  this  statement  that  the  action  of  the  Church  authorities  was  based. 
Though  the  letter  to  his  fellow  Apostles  is  couched  in  touching  terms,  it 
is  clear  from  it  that  years  of  physical  suffering  have  not  deprived  him 
of  the  courage  of  his  convictions.  He  holds  that  to  sign  the  address 
would  be  to  stultify  himself,  and  he  cannot  do  that,  even  to  secure  peace. 


8  THE  LATE  MANIFESTO   IN  POLITICS. 

The  refusal  to  sign  the  Manifesto  was  thought  to  be  the  last 
straw  of  Moses  Thatcher's  offending.  For  several  years  it  had 
been  secretly  whispered  that  he  had  been  insubordinate  to  his 
priestly  associates  and  superiors.  In  subsequent  pages  his  alleged 
demerits  will  be  more  fully  exhibited.  It  all  amounts  to  this: 
He  sought  to  think  and  act'  like  any  ordinary  American  citizen 
guided  by  the  principles  of  Thomas  Jefferson.  But  the  "coun- 
sel "  that  interdicted  his  freedom  of  action  was  not  in  sympathy 
with  the  principles  of  Jefferson.  It  sought  to  make  him  a  mere 
cog  in  the  wheels  of  a  priesthood  program  for  the  manipulation 
of  the  political  machinery  of  Utah  in  accordance  with  the  dic- 
tates of  a  single  central  intelligence.  For  twenty  years  Moses 
Thatcher  had  shown  symptoms  of  political  independence.  Fi- 
nally a  rule  was  conceived  and  promulgated  which  would  either 
clip  his  wings  or  disrobe  him  of  his  priestly  functions.  That 
rule  forced  him  to  decide  whether  he  would  abdicate  his  politi- 
cal manhood  and  hold  his  apostlehip,  or  otherwise  preserve  his 
freedom  of  citizenship  and  cease  to  administer  priestly  offices 
that  were  not  germane  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  He 
chose  to  pursue  a  course  "running  along  the  lines  of  honor,  in- 
tegrity and  truth." 

It  will  be  seen  in  the  following  chapter  that  a  great  effort 
was  made  to  disseminate  Moses  Thatcher's  demerits  over  an 
almost  unlimited  area ;  but  the  discerning  reader  will  see  at  a 
glance  that  the  refusal  to  endorse  the  Manifesto  was  the  last 
grievance  that  a  priesthood  sovereignty  would  tolerate.  Thence- 
forth it  was  either  "recant  or  burn." 


CHAPTER  SECOND. 


THE  ACCUSATIONS  AGAINST  MOSES  THATCHEE. 

At  the  time  of  the  April  Conference  Mr.  Thatcher  was  a  very- 
sick  man,  scarcely  able  to  walk  across  the  room,  and  neither  he 
nor  his  friends  had  much  hope  of  his  recovery.  Soon,  however, 
he  began  to  mend,  and  concluded  to  spend  several  weeks  at  a 
mountain  resort  up  the  Logan  Canyon.  Before  leaving  the 
City  he  was  assured  by  the  Presidency  of  the  Church  and  mem- 
bers of  his  quorum  that  nothing  would  be  done  in  reference  to 
his  matter  till  his  return  and  recovery.  This  assurance  was 
repeated  to  him  while  he  was  in  the  mountains,  but  for  some 
unknown  reason  the  First  Presidency  and  members  of  his  quo- 
rum did  take  up  his  case  and  made  public  charges  against  him 
in  the  last  General  Conference  held  in  October. 

The  purport  of  the  remarks  made  in  the  Conference  was  to 
show  up  a  continued  insubordination  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Thatcher 
extending  over  a  period  of  several  years.  His  name  had  been 
dropped  from  the  list  of  authorities  presented  for  confirmation 
at  the  April  Conference  immediately  after  his  refusal  to  sign 
the  Manifesto,  all  the  other  names  on  the  document  having  been 
signed  before  it  was  presented  to  Mr.  Thatcher.  It  is  evident 
that  the  authorities  did  not  keep  faith  with  Mr.  Thatcher  in 
bringing  up  his  case  in  his  absence;  and  it  is  apparent  that 
there  was  a  desire  to  locate  the  difficulty  with  Thatcher  on  other 
grounds  than  that  of  his  refusal  to  sign  the  manifesto;  though 
if  he  had  signed  it  when  it  was  presented  to  him  in  April  there 
would  have  been  no  question  as  to  his  standing  with  his 
quorum. 

In  order  to  show  the  sentiments  of  the  First  Presidency 
and  Apostles  at  the  October  Conference  in  regard  to  Mr. 
Thatcher,  and  the  grounds  on  which  his  insubordination  was 
condemned,  a  few  utterances  from  several  speakers  are  herewith 
presented,  the  quotations  being  from  the  Deseret  News : — 

GEO.  Q.  CANNON. 

(October  4.) 

When  I  respect  and  honor  Wilford  Woodruff  I  bow  to  God  who  has 
chosen  him.  My  neck  does  not  and  never  did  bow  to  man.  Those  who 
know  me  know  that  I  am  unbending  in  that  respect.     I  may  get  along 


10  THE  LATE  MANIFESTO   IN   POLITICS. 

quietly;  I  do  not  like  to  quarrel;  but  I  never  yet  bowed  to  man.    I  only 
bow  to  proper  authority. 

If  I  listen  to  Wilford  Woodruff,  if  I  look  to  him  to  see  how  the  Spirit 
of  God  moves  upon  him;  if  I  ask  his  counsel  and  take  it,  it  is  because  God 
has  commanded  me.  God  has  given  him  the  keys  of  authority.  Let  any- 
body else  try  it,  and  see  what  effect  their  action  would  have.  When  Joseph 
F.  Smith  obeys  Wilford  Woodruff,  he  does  it  upon  the  same  principle. 
We  reverence  him  as  the  prophet  of  God,  and  as  our  leader.  We  listen  to 
him,  and  are  guided  by  his  shghtest  wish.  It  is  because  we  know  that  he 
is  the  servant  of  God,  chosen  by  the  Almighty  to  fill  that  place,  and  that 
he  holds  the  keys  of  the  Priesthood  to  this  generation  on  the  earth  at  the 
present  time.  I  can  say  truthfully  that  we  strive  to  consult  his  slightest 
wish,  and  honor  him  in  his  position,  because  we  know  that  God  has  chosen 
him.  And  who  are  we  that  we  should  withstand  God?  Who  are  we  that 
we  should  withstand  that  which  God  reveals?  Does  this  sacrifice 
our  independence?  Not  in  the  least.  And  these  Twelve  Apostles  are 
in  precisely  the  same  position.  When  they  accept  the  counsel  of  the 
First  Presidency,  they  do  it  because  they  believe  the  First  Presidency 
to  be  chosen  of  God.  They  may  have  different  views  on  many  things; 
but  when  the  First  Presidency  gives  counsel,  every  man  that  has 
the  Spirit  of  God  accepts  that  counsel.  This  does  not  prevent  him  from 
entertaining  his  views  and  expressing  them,  and  it  does  not  detract  from 
his  influence.  Now,  we  do  not  ask  this  people  to  be  more  obedient  than 
we  are.  We  do  not  ask  you  to  do  something  that  we  are  not  willing  to  do. 
We  have  set  you  the  example.  We  ask  you,  as  the  Lord  asks  you,  to  obey 
the  authority  of  God  and  to  respect  it. 

WILFORD  WOODRUFF. 

(October  5.) 

My  brethren  and  sisters,  there  is  something  pressing  upon  my  mind 
that  I  want  to  say.  We  have  arrived  at  a  point  here  with  regard  to  cir- 
cumstances that  it  is  my  duty  to  take  up  as  the  President  of  the  Church. 
The  First  Presidency  and  the  Twelve  Apostles  were  never  more  united  as 
a  body  than  they  are  today.  Our  spirits  are  united.  We  believe  together, 
we  work  together,  we  pray  together;  and  we  believe  in  each  other,  because 
we  are  all  trying  to  do  the  will  of  God.  This  is  the  case  with  all  of  us, 
with  one  exception.     That  exception  is  Brother  Moses  Thatcher. 

There  has  been  a  great  deal  said  with  regard  to  Brother  Moses  That- 
cher, and  many  have  wondered  why  something  was  not  done  about  him. 
Well,  I  will  say  that  this  is  a  matter  that  belongs  to  the  Twelve  Apostles. 
He  is  a  member  of  that  quorum,  and  of  course  it  is  their  duty  to  take  hold 
of  that  work  and  attend  to  it  until  it  is  settled. 

The  Apostles  know  that  he  has  neglected  to  meet  with  them  at  times 
when  he  could  and  should  have  done  so.  He  has  been  at  difference  with 
them  in  many  things  that  have  transpired.  He  has  been  by  himself  in  his 
labor,  and  for  himself,  and  not  for  the  Church.  Now,  I  want  to  say  that 
neither  Moses  Thatcher  nor  any  other  man  on  the  face  of  the  earth  can 
stand  in  the  way  of  this  Church.  We  have  had  almost  whole  quorums  of 
Apostles  that  have  been  in  the  road,  and  they  have  had  to  be  moved  out  of 
it,  because  the  kingdom  of  God  cannot  stop  for  anybody— for  Wilford 
Woodruff,  for  Moses  Thatcher,  or  for  anybody  else.    Unless  we  work  with 


THE  ACCUSATIONS  AGAINST   MOSES   THATCHER.  11 

the  Saints  of  God,  with  the  Priesthood  of  God  and  with  the  organization 
of  His  Church,  we  cannot  have  any  power  or  influence. 

I  pray  that  His  blessing  and  spirit  may  rest,  not  only  on  the  First 
Presidency  and  Apostles  and  the  whole  Priesthood  and  the  Saints,  but 
upon  Moses  Thatcher,  that  his  eyes  may  be  opened  to  see,  his  ears  to  hear, 
and  his  heart  to  comprehend  his  position  and  duty  before  God  and  man. 

PRESIDENT  LORENZO  SNOW. 

(October  5.) 

As  the  President  of  the  Quorum  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  of  which 
Brother  Thatcher  is  a  member,  I  want  to  say  a  few  words  in  connection 
with  this  subject  that  has  been  introduced  by  President  Woodruff. 

About  the  last  conversation  I  had  with  Brother  Thatcher  was  m  the 
Temple,  either  at  the  last  spring  or  fall  Conference.  We  had  prayed  for 
him,  and  we  had  sent  some  of  our  most  experienced  brethren  to  talk  with 
him  privately  and  beg  of  him  to  make  things  satisfactory.  I  called  on 
Brother  Brigham  Young,  because  I  knew  he  felt  an  interest  in  Brother 
Thatcher,  and  was  a  wise  man,  to  go  and  see  him  and  plead  with  him  to 
make  things  satisfactory.  But  he  failed.  He  came  and  reported  to  me 
that  a  spirit  of  darkness  seemed  to  reign  in  Brother  Thatcher's  heart,  and 
he  could  not  reach  it.  I  still  thought,  however,  that  he  would  come  and 
make  things  right  before  he  returned  to  his  home  in  Logan;  and  about 
the  second  or  third  day  after  this,  I  was  visited  by  him  in  the  Temple.  I 
never  felt  to  rejoice  more  in  my  heart  than  when  I  saw  him  enter  my  room. 
I  thought  he  had  made  up  his  mind  to  do  that  which  we  requested  him  to 
do  and  to  place  himself  in  perfect  fellowship  with  the  brethren  of  the 
quorum.  I  talked  with  him.  I  did  most  of  the  talking  myself.  I  felt  the 
spirit  of  it,  as  I  always  did  when  I  spoke  to  him,  because  my  heart  was 
warm  towards  him,  and  the  Lord  seemed  to  help  me  so  that  I  felt  perfectly 
at  home  in  telling  him  just  what  the  Lord  dictated  to  me.  I  thought  he 
had  come  to  my  room  with  his  mind  made  up  to  take  a  course  to  come  into 
fellowship,  with  his  quorum.  I  was  disappointed,  however,  I  felt  like  shed- 
ding tears  when  he  left  the  room.  There  was  not  that  disposition  exist- 
ing in  him  that  I  hoped  there  would  be  when  he  came 

Now,  there  is  a  certain  document  that  you  have  heard  talked  about 
a  good  deal.  Brother  Young  and  myself  took  that  document  to  Brother 
Thatcher.  His  physical  condition  was  not  very  promising,  and  I  asked 
him  if  I  should  read  it  to  him.  He  said  he  preferred  to  read  it  himself, 
and  he  read  it — read  it  very  deliberately.  He  said  he  did  not  feel  then  to 
approve  of  it  altogether;  he  wished  it  to  remain  for  awhile.  We  accorded 
him  his  wish.  As  President  Woodruff  had  said,  not  half  the  trouble  is  in 
relation  to  that  document — not  one  hundredth  part  that  is  talked  about. 
Of  course,  it  was  rather  singular.  There  were  appended  to  that  document 
the  names  of  the  First  Presidency,  of  the  Apostles,  (with  the  exception  of 
Brother  Lund,  who  was  then  in  England)  of  the  first  seven  Presidents  of 
the  Seventies,  of  the  Patriarchs,  and  of  the  presiding  Bishopric — twenty- 
four  names  in  all,  representing  the  authorities  of  the  Church;  but  he  did 
not  feel  inclined,  he  said,  to  put  his  name  to  the  document. 

I  am  reminded  of  a  little  anecdote  I  heard  of  Brother  Erastus  Snow, 
which  illustrates  a  principle.  Brother  George  A.  Smith  was  speaking  to 
an  "outside"  audience  one  night,  and  Brother  Erastus  fell  asleep.     When 


12  THE   LATE  MANIFESTO   IN   POLITICS. 

'lie  got  through  preaching  he  sat  down  and  elbowed  Brother  Erastus,  and 
requested  him  to  bear  his  testimony.  It  was  thought  that  Brother 
Erastus  had  scarcely  heard  a  word  ;  but  he  arose  and  said  :  "My  friends, 
eyery  word  that  my  brother  here  has  said  is  God's  truth."  Now,  why  did 
he  say  so?  There  was  a  reason  for  this.  Why,  he  knew  Brother  George 
A.  Smith;  he  had  heard  him  preach  a  hundred  times,  and  he  knew  that 
he  was  a  man  of  inspiration,  and  he  would  never  say  anything  but  that 
was  true.  Well,  I  think  when  a  man  is  so  well  acquainted  with  the  First 
Presidency,  with  the  Apostles,  with  the  Patriarch,  with  the  Presidents  of 
Seventies,  and  with  the  Presiding  Bishops,  he  ought  to  have  some  confi- 
dence in  the  position  of  these  brethren ;  and  if  that  brother  is  rather  low 
in  his  mind  and  does  not  really  feel  competent  to  judge  of  the  matter,  he 
ought  to  have  confidence  in  his  Brethren. 

Brethren  and  sisters,  these  are  solemn  truths  that  I  have  told  you 
and  what  President  Woodruff  has  stated.  I  want  you  all  to  pray  for 
brother  Thatcher.  As  soon  as  his  physical  abilities  will  allow,  we  shall 
have  him  before  our  quorum  and  he  will  be  treated  by  his  friends.  But 
there  are  certain  rules  and  regulations,  that  we  as  the  servants  of  God, 
must  conform  to,  and  we  are  nob  responsible  for  them. 

JOHN  HENRY  SMITH : 

(October  5  ) 

I  have  recognized  the  fact  that  there  must  be  an  explantion  made 
to  the  Latter-day  Saints  in  connection  with  the  subject  upon  which 
the  President  of  the  Church  and  the  President  of  the  Council  of  the 
Apostles  have  treated.  I  fully  understand  that  within  three  days 
after  Brother  Moses  Thatcher  declined  to  sustain  his  associates  he  would 
have  been  dealt  with  for  his  fellowship  and  standing  in  the  Council  of 
the  Apostles  but  for  his  physical  condition. 

The  Presidency  of  the  Church  and  the  Council  of  the  Apostles,  in 
their  deliberations  upon  all  questions  that  affect  the  wellbeing  and  interest 
of  the  cause,  are  as  candid  and  frank  in  their  consultations  and  expression 
of  views  as  any  body  of  men  could  possibly  be.  But  when  a  conclusion 
has  been  reached  as  to  the  course  that  should  be  pursued,  it  is  expected 
that  every  man  will  give  in  his  adherence  to  the  course  marked  out,  and 
with  unfaltering  voice  and  fixed  determination,  bo  that  those  counsels  may 
prevail,  so  far  as  may  be  possible,  among  the  whole  people. 

It  is  not  my  thought,  in  the  time  that  1  am  here,  to  dwell  upon  the 
position  in  which  our  brother  finds  himself.  I  have  held  the  hope,  I  hold 
the  hope  now,  that  he  will  see  his  way  clear  to  put  himself  in  unison  with 
his  associates,  that  he  may  stand  with  them  and  receive  in  the  end  the 
commendation  of  our  Father,  through  his  humility,  and  that  his  name 
may  not  be  effaced  from  the  roll  of  honor  which  God  in  this  dispensation 
and  in  this  day  has  established.  It  is  not  for  me  to  speak  further  upon  this 
subject.  I  stand  by  my  President  and  by  the  Presidency  of  this  Church 
in  the  position  they  have  taken,  because  I  know  they  are  right. 

My  judgment  was  convinced  that  their  position  was  absolutely  cor- 
rect, or  I  never  would  have  subscribed  my  name  to  that  document,  nor 
would  I,  in  connection  with  my  brethren,  have  sought  in  various  ways 
to  awaken  a  class  of  refiections  in  the  mind  of  our  brother  that  would  have 
brought  him  in  unison  with  the  council  of  which  he  is  a  member. 


THE  ACCUSATIONS  AGAINST   MOSES  THATCHER.  13 

BRIGHAM  YOUNG: 
(October  5.) 

There  was  a  time  when  I  was  absent  from  Utah  for  two  years  and  a 
half,  I  left  here  in  August,  1890.  But  I  knew  more  than  I  cared  to  know 
before  I  left  then  in  relation  to  this  matter.  I  cannot  see  a  man  rise  up 
and  stand  in  open  rebellion  to  his  brethren  in  defiance  of  the  pleadings  of 
his  quorum,  and  feel  that  he  has  the  Spirit  of  God  in  him,  which  I  wit- 
nessed previous  to  my  departure  in  1890;  for  I  saw  Brother  Moses  stand 
in  open  rebellion  to  his  quorum. 

On  a  certain  occasion,  quite  a  long  time  ago,  I  went  to  President 
Woodruff  and  asked  him  the  question:  "  What  is  the  reason  of  this  dark- 
ness that  1  see  in  the  mind  of  a  man  whom  I  have  loved  like  a  brother, 
whom  I  had  placed  in  my  affection,  equal  to  any  man  upon  the  face  of  the 
earth."  This  is  the  answer  that  he  gave  me:  "  He  has  sought  to  rule  over 
his  brethren  and  has  lost  the  spirit." 

Where,  brethren  and  sisters,  will  you  get  the  channel  of  communica- 
tion opened  up  between  you  and  the  powers  that  reign  over  the  earth? 
The  God  that  sits  in  the  heavens,  and  the  angels  and  saints  that  visit  us — 
through  what  line  of  communication  do  they  come?  God  has  placed 
these  authorities  here  to  guide  His  people,  and  when  a  man  cuts  that 
thread  for  himself,  then  the  channel  of  revelation  is  destroyed,  so  far  as 
that  man  is  concerned.  If  you  and  I  ever  consider  that  we  can  reach  God 
and  get  His  mind  and  will  in  relation  to  this  great  work  without  receiving 
it  through  the  channel  of  those  men  who  stand  at  the  head,  then  all  I 
have  to  say  to  you  or  myself  is,  we  have  cut  the  thread  between  us  and  the 
Spirit  of  God,  and  we  are  left  to  wander  in  bye  and  forbidden  paths.  One 
channel,  one  organization !  And  no  man  may  rise  against  that  and  expect 
that  he  will  be  favored  of  the  Lord  or  permitted  to  enjoy  His  Spirit. 

JOSEPH  F.  SMITH: 

(October  5.) 

I  wish  merely  to  say  a  word  to  guard  the  people  from  unwise  sympa- 
thies. While  we  may  have  a  great  deal  of  love  for  our  fellow  beings,  and 
especially  for  those  who  have  been  favored  of  the  Lord  in  times  past  we 
should  exercise  that  love  wisely.  Now,  I  love  men  and  women  who  are  de- 
voted to  the  cause  of  truth,  and  my  sympathies  are  always  with  them. 
But  it  is  impossible  for  me  to  sympathize  with  those  who  do  wrong.  It  is 
written  somewhere  in  the  laws  of  God  that  "the  Lord  required  the  heart, 
and  a  willing  mind  and  the  willing  and  the  obedient  shall  eat  the  good  of 
the  land  of  Zion  in  these  last  days."  Now,  if  a  man  has  given  his  heart 
unto  the  Lord,  and  is  willing  and  obedient  unto  God  and  his  requirements, 
that  man  I  love  and  that  man  has  my  sympathy.  But  when  he  turns 
away  from  the  love  of  God  and  steels  his  heart  against  the  laws  of  God 
and  the  counsels  of  his  priesthood,  then  amen  to  the  authority  and  power 
of  that  man  and  to  my  love  and  sympathy  for  him  in  his  wrong-doing.  I 
may  pity  him  for  his  wrong-doing,  and  I  may  love  him,  too,  as  well  as  any- 
body else;  but  when  he  ceases  to  do  right,  that  is  the  end  of  it  with  me. 
He  may  go  his  own  road  and  I  will  go  mine.  I  love  my  own  brother;  I 
love  my  sister;  I  love  my  wife  and  children;  but  when  my  brother,  or  sis- 
ter, or  wife,  or  child  turns  away  from  God  and  raises  the  heel  against  the 
Almighty  and  turns  his  or  her  heart  to  their  own  selfish  desires  and'whims 


14  THE  LATE   MANIFESTO   IN   POLITICS. 

they  are  no  more  to  me  than  the  heathen;  for  they  are  unbelievers,  and 
they  are  not  my  brother  nor  my  sister  in  the  covenant  of  the  gospel,  and 
that  covenant  is  stronger  than  all  other  covenants  and  all  other  ties  that 
bind  the  Saints  together. 

The  man  that  will  abide  in  the  covenant  is  my  brother  and  my  friend, 
and  has  my  sympathy  and  love,  and  I  will  sustain  him.  But  the  man  who 
raises  his  heel  and  his  voice  against  the  servants  of  God  and  the  authority 
of  the  Priesthood  on  the  earth  is  not  my  friend,  and  he  has  not  my  sym- 
pathy nor  my  love.  Mercy  has  done  its  work;  patience  has  endured  long 
enough;  and  all  Israel  must  know  that  a  man,  whether  he  is  an  Apostle,  a 
High  Priest,  or  a  Seventy,  that  will  not  hearken  to  the  voice  of  God,  that 
will  not  give  his  heart  unto  the  Lord,  that  is  not  obedient,  must  cease  to 
be  fellowshipped  by  the  people  of  God.  We  cannot  uphold  men  who  will 
pursue  a  course  like  this,  or  who  will  betray  their  brethren.  We  cannot 
afford  it,  and  we  cannot  do  it  and  be  justified  before  the  Lord. 

We  have  received  a  communication,  saying  that  we  stood  self-con- 
demned before  the  people,  because  we  had  transgressed  the  law  of  God, 
We  have  transgressed  no  law  of  God,  so  far  as  we  know.  It  is  a  clear  case 
of  the  twelve  jurymen,  eleven  of  whom  were  united  and  saw  eye  to  eye. 
while  the  one  stood  out  alone,  claiming  that  all  the  rest  were  wrong .  We 
have  borne  and  borne.  Six  months  have  passed — aye,  years  have  passed, 
because  that  which  occurred  six  months  ago  marked  only  the  forks  of  the 
road,  only  the  dividing  line.  For  years  before  we  had  tolerated,  and 
patiently  waited,  we  had  prayed  and  petitioned,  and  we  had  suffered  long 
and  yet  to  no  avail.  Our  councils  have  seldom  been  graced  by  his 
presence.  He  has  not  felt  it  necessary  to  be  one  with  his  brethren.  He 
has  estranged  himself  from  us,  not  we  from  him.  It  is  a  matter  concern- 
ing the  government  of  the  Church,  and  the  authority  which  God  has  insti- 
tuted to  direct  and  to  guide.  It  is  the  question  as  to  whether  the  people 
will  unite  with  the  majority  of  the  Priesthood,  who  are  united  and  see  eye 
to  eye,  or  whether  they  will  be  misled  by  one  man. 

It  is  to  be  regretted  that  Mr.  Smith,  standing  as  he  does  at 
the  head  of  a  great  ecclesiastical  organization,  should  utter 
sentiments  savoring  so  strongly  of  the  dark  ages.  In  the  light 
of  the  gospel  of  the  blessed  Christ  who  died  for  all,  both  saint 
and  sinner;  in  the  presence  of  nineteenth  century  civilization, 
it  sounds  harsh  and  even  cruel  for  a  man  to  say  that  certain 
doctrines  and  ordinances  are  the  supreme  standard  whereby  he 
will  either  love  brother,  sister,  wife  or  child;  or  otherwise  spurn 
them  from  him  and  hold  them  as  "heathen,"  if  they  do  not  be- 
lieve and  worship  as  he  does.  Surely  Mr.  Joseph  F.  Smith 
should  realize  that  it  is  not  a  matter  of  doctrine  or  practice  that 
is  the  true  standard  whereby  to  enter  into  sympathetic  relations 
with  men  and  women,  but  the  soul  endowment,  the  image  of 
God  in  each  and  all.  We  may  hate  sin,  but  surely  we  must 
love  the  sinner.     Such  are  the  lessons  of  the  Great  Teacher. 

In  order  that  a  little  more  light  may  be  shed  on  the  ques- 
tion ot  Moses  Thatcher's  disagreement  with  his  quorum  and  the 


THE  ACCUSATIONS  AGAINST  MOSES  THATCHER.  15 

First  Presidency,  it  is  well  to  add  a  portion  of  Mr.  Smith's 
speech  at  the  priesthood  meeting  at  Logan  a  few  months  previ- 
ous. There  need  be  no  question  as  to  the  accuracy  of  the  report, 
for  it  is  thoroughly  substantiated,  and  may  be  read  in  full  in  the 
Salt  Lake  papers  of  May  10th  and  11th,  1896:— 

Joseph  F.  Smith  was  the  next  speaker.  He  said  that  Moses  Thatch- 
er's attitude  all  through  the  political  fight  in  Utah  could  not  be  justified; 
that  he  had  been  the  one  Apostle  who  had  refused  to  take  counsel  as  to 
how  the  people  should  be  divided  up;  that  the  First  Presidency  and  all 
the  Twelve  but  Thatcher  had  decided  upon  a  certain  policy  to  get  the  re- 
lief they  needed  from  the  government;  but  Thatcher  had  stood  out  against 
them;  that  he  had  been  opposing  his  brethren  ever  since  the  division  on 
party  lines,  and  had  not  been  in  harmony  with  his  quorum. 

Joseph  F.  said  further  that  the  meeting  called  in  the  Gardo  House  to 
consider  the  advisability  of  disbanding  the  People's  Party  was  attended  by 
many  of  the  authorities,  stake  presidents  and  leaders  of  the  People's 
Party. 

It  was  plainly  stated  at  this  meeting  that  men  in  high  authority  who 
believed  in  Republican  principles  should  go  out  among  the  people,  but 
that  those  in  high  authority  who  could  not  indorse  the  principles  of 
Republicanism  should  remain  silent.  Their  counsel  was  obeyed  by  all  the 
Apostles  and  high  authorities  except  Moses  Thatcher,  who  talked  to  the 
people  contrary  to  the  wishes  of  his  brethren.  If  it  had  not  been  for  his 
condition,  Moses  Thatcher  would  have  been  called  to  account  for  his 
declaration  in  the  opera  house,  (here  giving  Thatcher's  declaration  of  poli- 
tical independence),  but  if  he  ever  became  able  he  would  have  to  answer 
for  that  as  well  as  other  things  they  proposed  to  charge  against  him. 

In  this  connection  it  is  important  to  put  on  record  a  cir- 
cumstance showing  on  the  part  of  Joseph  F.  Smith  a  spirit  of 
extraordinary  resentment  and  clerical  intolerance.  At  the  Stake 
Conference  held  in  Logan  during  the  month  of  November, 
Bishop  Lewis  was  reprimanded  by  Mr.  Smith  for  making  Moses 
Thatcher  the  subject  of  prayer,  although  Presidents  Woodruff 
and  Snow  at  the  October  Conference  enjoined  upon  the  Saints 
the  duty  of  praying  for  him.  The  circumstance  is  narrated  in 
the  following  letter  from  a  prominent  churchman,  appearing  in 
the  Tribune  November  21st: 

Logan,  Utah,  November  20,  1896. 

It  is  fully  realized  here  that  in  the  Senatorial  candidacy  of  Moses 
Thatcher  and  the  fight  being  made  against  him  by  the  organ  which  pur- 
ports to  voice  the  sentiments  of  the  Church,  a  grave  issue  has  arisen, 
greater,  in  fact,  than  the  one  caused  by  the  issuance  of  the  original  mani- 
festo abandoning  the  practice  of  polygamy,  and  there  are  thousands  whose 
faith  scarcely  survived  that  ordeal. 

A  great  moral  question  is  involved,  and  it  will  not  be  without  serious 
thought  that  conservative  members  of  the  Church  will  align  themselves  on 


16  THE   LATE   MANIFESTO   IN   POLITICS. 

either  side.  A  few  years  ago  there  could  have  been  no  doubt  of  the  out- 
come. Then  the  utterances  of  the  First  Presidency  and  the  Apostles 
would  have  been  considered  as  the  voice  of  God,  and  no  one  would  have 
thought  of  upholding  Moses  Thatcher  or  any  other  man  in  opposition  to 
their  expressed  will;  but  division  on  party  lines  brought  about  a  change, 
and  they  are  no  longer  considered  infallible,  especially  in  political  affairs. 
They  claim  that  Church  and  State  have  been  divorced,  but  a  candid  exam- 
ination of  the  rule  they  seek  to  enforce— that  of  asking  consent  before 
accepting  office — will  be  sufficient  to  convince  one  that  Moses  Thatcher  is 
right  when  he  says  that  it  might  be  the  means  of  making  the  Church  a 
great  political  machine,  the  steering  apparatus  of  which  would  be  in  the 
hands  of  the  twelve  or  fifteen  men  at  the  head.  The  majority  of  those 
who  opposed  the  rule  did  it  for  the  same  reason  expressed  by  Moses 
Thatcher  in  his  recent  interview  for  the  Tribune;  it  was  too  sweeping,  and 
could  be  made  to  include  almost  every  male  member  of  the  Church,  as 
there  are  but  few  lay  members.  The  leaders  have  disclaimed  any  such 
intent  in  sermons  on  the  subject,  but  it  would  have  been  just  as  easy  and 
much  more  satisfactory  to  have  changed  the  wording  of  the  document  so 
as  to  state  specifically  what  officers  were  to  be  subject  to  the  rule. 

In  Cache  Valley,  at  least,  Moses  Thatcher  will  receive  full  credit  for 
sincerity.  Here  he  is  known,  and  that  this  was  a  matter  of  conscience 
with  him  no  one  will  doubt.  It  seems  that  special  efforts  have  been  made 
to  cast  discredit  on  him  here,  probably  because  here  he  was  best  known 
and  loved.  It  was  to  the  Presidency  of  this  Stake  that  the  first  letter  was 
issued  forbidding  them  to  allow  him  to  preach  or  officiate  in  any  of  the 
ordinances;  and  it  was  here  that  Joseph  F.  Smith,  contrary  to  the  teach- 
ings of  the  Savior,  publicly  rebuked  Bishop  B.  M.  Lewis  for  praying  for 
Moses  Thatcher  during  our  recent  quarterly  Conference.  The  prayer  was, 
one  would  think,  a  perfectly  proper  one  from  a  Church  standpoint,  as  the 
appeal  was  that  his  mind  might  be  enlightened  and  that  he  might  once 
more  be  brought  into  harmony  with  his  quorum.  Mr.  Smith  assumed  that 
no  prayer  must  be  uttered  publicly  in  favor  of  the  erring  (?)  member.  This 
savored  so  strongly  of  a  spirit  contrary  to  that  of  the  divine  love  and  com- 
passion that  has  heretofore  been  enjoined,  that  many  who  had  supported 
the  Manifesto  and  considered  Mr.  Thatcher's  opposition  wrong,  wondered 
whether  after  all,  some  strong  personal  feeling  did  not  underlie  the  pres- 
sure brought  to  bear  on  him,  and  began  to  investigate  his  reasons  for 
opposing  it.  If  the  Senatorship  could  be  left  to  the  popular  vote,  Moses 
Thatcher  would  have  an  overwhelming  majority  in  Cache  county,  and  the 
constituents  of  the  members-elect  to  the  State  Legislature  from  this 
county  will  expect  them  to  give  this  sentiment  fitting  expression.  Young 
Utah  has  read  history  and  has  there  seen  the  awful  results  of  placing  un- 
limited political  power  in  ecclesiastical  hands,  when  the  merits  of  candi- 
dates were  discussed  and  their  fate  settled,  not  in  political  conventions, 
but  in  priesthood  meetings.  Those  days  are  gone;  but  would  it  not  be  the 
aame  in  effect  if  rival  candidates  each  had  to  ask  the  consent  of  the  same 
Church  authority? 

The  following  partial  report  of  the  prooeedings  of  the  Con- 
ference on  Tuesday,  October  6th,  is  quoted  from  the  Tribune 
of  the  7th: 


THE  ACCUSATIONS  AGAINST   MOSES  THATCHER.  IT 

Ab  on  the  day  before,  Moses  Thatcher  received  the  major  portion  a 
attention  from  speakers  at  yesterday's  sessions  of  the  Mormon  Church 
Conference.  Apostles  John  W.  Taylor  and  M.  W.  Merrill  in  turn  stated 
their  agreement  with  the  majority  in  the  case.  In  the  afternoon  President 
George  Q.  Cannon  discussed  the  matter  at  considerable  length,  though 
carefully  avoiding  mention  of  Apostle  Thatcher's  name.  His  tone  indi- 
cated that  he  regarded  the  termination  of  the  matter  as  settled.  He  spoke 
of  the  unjupt  condemnation  of  the  priesthood  for  its  course,  and  told  those 
who  had  uttered  condemnatory  words  what  their  duty  now  is. 

President  George  Q.  Cannon  then  arose.  "  Our  Conference  thus  far," 
he  began,  "  has  been  of  exceeding  interest  to  all  who  have  shared  in  He. 
proceedings.  Never  have  I  heard  the  brethren  speak  with  greater  power.. 
I  have  never  felt  more  edified  by  the  addresses.  It  is  indeed  deeply  grati- 
fying that  such  a  measure  of  the  spirit  and  power  of  God  should  have 
thus  rested  upon  President  Woodruff  and  upon  President  Snow.  There  is; 
no  doubt  that  the  Saints  will  depart,  instructed  upon  many  points,  per- 
haps hitherto  hidden  from  them.  Equally  there  is  no  doubt  that  many 
surmises  have  been  indulged  in  and  possibly  unjust  remarks  made  regard- 
ing the  authorities  in  some  of  their  actions. 

"  I  am  glad  that  the  spirit  of  God  has  moved  President  Woodruff  and 
others  to  speak  on  the  subject  as  they  have  done." 

President  Cannon  explained  that  while  it  was  the  duty  of  the  leaders 
to  take  up  the  matter  as  they  had,  still  a  feeling  of  delicacy  caused  them 
to  shrink  from  making  the  trouble  public.  He  said  that  the  delay  owing 
to  this  disinclination  to  act  upon  the  part  of  the  authorities  had  resulted 
in  a  peculiar  condition  of  affairs  arising,  which  had  been  further  compli- 
cated by  the  introduction  of  politics.  This  made  the  brethren  in  full 
knowledge  of  the  trouble  less  inclined  than  ever  to  speak.  Their  reticence 
had  been  misunderstood,  their  motives  misconceived,  and  themselves  held 
up  for  condemnation  in  many  instances.  All  this  had  resulted  from  the 
kindliness,  manifested  by  the  failure  to  make  public  a  brother's  error. 

"  This  should  be  a  warning,  a  solemn  warning,  to  all  of  you  to  not  be 
hasty  in  reaching  a  conclusion  or  in  the  censure  or  condemnation  of  any 
one  whom  God  has  placed  to  preside  over  you.  It  is  a  warning  to  be  care- 
ful, for  1  believe  that  a  great  amount  of  sin  has  been  committed  and  the 
spirit  of  God  grieved,  causing  darkness  to  many  minds  because  the  liberty 
has  been  taken,  if  I  may  use  the  word,  to  condemn  without  understanding 
all  the  circumstances  of  the  case  mentioned  yesterday." 

President  Cannon  referred  to  a  letter  from  a  president  of  the  Seven- 
ties who  at  one  time  was  prominent  in  Sunday-school  work,  in  which  the 
writer  said  the  authorities  had  violated  the  law  of  the  Church,  and  as  men 
standing  self -convicted  they  were  called  upon  to  repent  and  make  amends. 
This  letter,  he  said,  affords  an  index  of  the  sentiment  that  may  actuate 
possibly  hundreds. 

"  Now,  God  has  warned  us,"  he  continued,  "not  to  speak  evil  of  the 
Lord's  annointed.  Any  one  who  finds  fault  with  them  is  liable  to  lose  the 
spirit  and  go  into  darkness.  The  Prophet  said  that  fault-finding  was  one 
of  the  first  symptoms  of  apostacy:  God  has  chosen  his  servants  and 
claims  it  as  His  prerogative  to  condemn  them  and  censure  them.  It 
is  not  given  to  us  individually  to  do  this,  No  man,  no  matter  how  high  in 
the  Church,  can  speak  evil  of  the  Lord's  annointed  without  incurring  the 
displeasure  of  the  Lord  and  losing  the  spirit.    Then  how  important  it  is 


18  THE   LATE  MANIFESTO   IN   POLITICS. 

not  to  question  or  censure  the  heads  of  the  Church,  no  matter  how  difficult 
it  may  be  to  comprehend  the  reasons  for  their  actions. 

"  Never  since  the  days  of  Kirtland  has  there  been  such  a  spirit  in  the 
Church  to  do  this  error  as  has  been  shown  during  the  past  few  years.  We 
have  almost  feared  to  go  to  some  places,  owing  to  the  arraignment  of  our  mo- 
tives and  condemnation  of  our  actions.  Yesterday's  explanations  ought  to 
have  the  effect  of  making  these  people,  who  have  been  finding  fault  and 
condemning  unjustly,  ashamed  of  themselves  so  that  they  will  ask  God's 
forgiveness  for  having  condemned  innocent  men.  People  are  going  to 
apostatize  because  of  this,  if  they  don't  repent." 

To  the  careful  reader  it  will  be  apparent  that  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  Conference  in  relation  to  Moses  Thatcher,  beginning 
on  Sunday  and  ending  on  Tuesday,  are  guided  and  inspired  by 
one  comprehensive  and  efficient  mind.  Mr.  Cannon's  avowed 
loyalty  to  his  aged  superior,  his  exaltation  of  the  ostensible 
Head  of  the  Church  to  the  Vicegenerency  under  God,  his 
reference  to  him  as  the  source  of  plenary  authority,  his  profes- 
sions of  absolute  submission  for  himself  and  his  brother  offii- 
cials — all  this  was,  in  the  nature  of  things,  deeply  suggestive  to 
the  venerable  President,  and  next  day  it  bore  fruit  in  the  form 
of  harsh  accusation  in  the  speech  of  one  whose  guilessness  and 
gentleness  are  light  and  peace  to  the  Church.  There  were  other 
speeches  and  exortations.  but  they  all  chimed  in  harmonously 
as  parts  of  the  orchestral  performance  inaugurated  on  Sunday. 
The  master  mind  had  touched  the  button  and  a  responsive 
corps  of  helpers  did  the  rest. 

We  can  only  imagine  the  depth  of  satisfaction  with  which 
the  chief  designer  could  take  hold  of  the  clearing  up  process 
on  the  third  day  and  thank  God  that  there  had  been  such  out- 
pouring of  divine  grace!  And  what  a  magnificent  inning  to  the 
First  Presidency  !  They  had  been  censured  for  too  great  leni- 
ency! But  see  now  what  mountains  there  were  in  the  way! 
See  how  gallantly  we  have  plucked  them  up  by  the  roots  and 
cast  them  into  the  sea! 

But  mark  you!  it  was  a  "political  document'  that  caused 
all  this  outpouring  of  zeal  and  sentiment ;  it  was  the  refusal  of 
a  beloved  Apostle  to  sign  that  political  document  that  caused 
the  heavens  to  open  and  the  vials  of  wrath  to  be  poured  out;  in 
short,  it  was  a  spectacular  performance,  a  shrewdly  devised 
program  with  sheet  lightning  and  stage  thunder  in  abundance, 
and  all  for  the  purpose  of  stampeding  the  faithful  Saints  into 
an  attitude  of  recognized  encroachment  on  the  political  sphere  I 
There  were  business  reasons,  too,  and  these  are  heaving  in  fer- 
ment like  an  angry  volcano.     Over  all  let  us  pay  honest  tribute 


THE  ACCUSATIONS  AGAINST   MOSES   THATCHER.  19 

to  the  sincerity  and  worth  of  the  body  o?  the  Saints  ;  their  in- 
dustry and  patience  are  worthy  of  all  praise. 

From  the  remarks  of  the  leading  officials  quoted  above 
several  important  conclusions  may  be  drawn,  as  follows: 

1.  The  priesthood  organization  as  viewed  by  the  First 
Presidency  is  the  divinely  authorized  and  exclusive  channel  of 
communication  between  God  and  mankind,  the  only  instrumen- 
tality whereby  God  intends  to  promote  His  cause  and  kingdom 
in  the  world. 

2.  The  obligations  imposed  upon  those  who  hold  the  high- 
er orders  of  priesthood  require  absolute  obedience  to  the  First 
Presidency,  not  only  as  to  religious  and  spiritual  things  but 
also  those  that  are  civil  and  political. 

3.  Moses  Thatcher's  disobedience  and  insubordination  lay 
in  his  refusal  to  submit  his  civil  and  political  agency  to  the  dic- 
tation of  his  quorum  and  his  superiors  in  the  priesthood. 

4.  As  shown  elsewhere  in  these  pages,  the  First  Presidency, 
the  Apostles  and  the  whole  Church  in  conference  assembled 
made  solemn  pledges  to  the  people  of  the  United  States  and  the 
people  of  Utah  that  the  Church  should  claim  no  control  or  au- 
thority over  civil  and  political  functions,  and  on  these  pledges 
statehood  was  secured.  Hence  in  refusing  to  submit  his  politi- 
cal agency  to  the  dictation  of  the  Church,  Moses  Thatcher  was 
keeping  the  plighted  faith  of  the  Mormon  Church  and  people. 

5.  The  decisive  act  of  disobedience  of  Moses  Thatcher  was 
his  refusal  to  sign  the  Manifesto;  and  for  this  refusal,  as  John 
Henry  Smith  remarks,  he  would  have  been  called  to  account 
"within  three  days"  had  it  not  been  for  the  condition  of  his 
health. 

6.  The  specific  form  of  submission  that  was  required  of 
him  in  order  to  his  reinstatement  in  full  fellowship  with  his 
quorum  was  to  submit  absolutely  and  unreservedly  his  religious 
and  political  agency  to  the  counsel  and  dictation  of  his  quorum 
and  his  superiors  in  the  priesthood.  His  want  of  fellowship 
was  not  a  lack  of  love,  kindness  and  charity,  for  he  would  have 
given  of  his  means  unstintedly  to  the  help  of  his  brethren,  and 
at  the  "last  call"  for  money  to  finish  the  Temple  he  gave  $3500; 
but  this  was  not  what  was  required;  rather  was  it  that  he  should 
surrender  his  political  manhood  and  independence,  and  to  this 
he  could  not  consent,  and  thank  God  he  could  not  and  did  not ! 

7.  It  is  not  indended  in  these  pages  to  call  in  question  any 
of  the  doctrines  of  the  Mormon  faith  as  a  purely  religious  sys- 
tem; but  as  to  politics  and  the  civil  sphere,  the  church  and  the 


20  THE  LATE  MANIFESTO   IN   POLITICS. 

authorities  have  surrendered  control  under  formal  pledge;  they 
have  said  :  "Render  unto  Csesar  the  things  that  are  Caesar's  and 
to  God  the  things  that  are  God's,"  and  they  must  not  seek  to 
dishonor  their  pledges.  Moreover,  submission  to  Church  dic- 
tation in  political  affairs  is  in  opposition  to  the  spirit  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  and  to  the  genius  of  American 
Institutions. 

8.  While  there  is  no  issue  raised  in  this  book  against 
religious  doctrines,  there  is  a  very  clear  issue  made  against  that 
operation  of  religious  doctrines  which  infringes  on  the  political 
free-agency  of  the  individual.  This  opposition  is  on  two 
grounds:  First.  It  is  wrong  in  itself  as  an  infraction  of  the 
inherent  civil  rights  of  the  citizen.  Second.  It  is  in  conflict 
with  the  pledges  of  the  Church  which  has  solemnly  renounced 
all  claim  or  assumption  to  control  in  the  civil  and  political 
sphere.  If  Moses  Thatcher,  in  entering  the  Apostleship,  made 
any  pledges  or  took  any  vows  which  compromised  his  political 
or  civil  freedom,  he  is  in  duty  bound  to  renounce  them,  especially 
since  Statehood  was  secured  by  relinquishing  the  right  to 
enforce  such  vows.  But  it  seems  that  his  offense  consisted  in 
his  refusal  to  do  what  would  be  a  ratification  and  recognition  of 
such  a  vow.  Such  a  vow,  either  in  form  or  effect,  would  be  a 
crime  against  the  Declaration  of  Independence. 

9.  The  several  speakers  of  the  Conference,  in  referring  to 
the  Manifesto,  call  it  a  "  political  document."  It  is  most  emi- 
nently a  "  political  document,"  for  it  defines  and  qualifies  the 
political  and  civil  agency  of  every  man  that  is  subjected  to  its 
rule.  Yet  it  is  claimed  in  the  name  of  religion  that  such  a 
document  should  be  submitted  to!  Is  not  this  claim  a  usurpa- 
tion of  the  functions  of  the  State?  President  Snow  censures 
Moses  Thatcher  because  he  did  not  sign  the  "  political  docu- 
ment" on  the  strength  of  the  twenty-four  names  already  on  it, 
just  as  he  says  Erastus  Snow  endorsed  the  words  of  George  A. 
Smith — words  spoken  while  Erastus  Snow  was  asleep — pro- 
nouncing them  **  God's  truth,"  when  he  never  heard  a  word, 
and  gave  his  **  testimony  "  on  the  single  ground  that  he  knew 
George  A.  Smith  was  *!  a  man  of  inspiration  and  would  never 
say  anything  untrue."  How  this  process  of  believing  and 
knowing  things  to  be  true  because  people  say  they  are  true, 
may  work  in  religion,  is  not  a  matter  of  inquiry  in  this  connec- 
tion; but  when  it  comes  to  roping  in  a  man's  political  and  civil 
agency  on  such  grounds,  it  is  a  different  matter.  It  is  encroach- 
ment on  the  State. 


THE  ACCUSATIONS  AGAINST   MOSES   THATCHER.  21 

10.  John  Henry  Smith  gives  away  his  mental  processes  in 
a  very  open  manner.  He  says  that  within  three  days  "  Moses 
Thatcher  would  have  been  dealt  with  had  it  not  been  for  the 
state  of  his  health  "  And  this  for  not  signing  the  "political 
document."  And  what  does  Mr.  Smith  rest  his  faith  on?  He 
says,  "I  stand  by  my  President  and  the  Presidency  of  this 
Church  in  the  position  they  have  taken,  because  I  know  they 
are  righV  And  George  Q.  Cannon  says,  "  When  they  (the 
Twelve  Apostles)  accept  the  counsel  of  the  First  Presidency, 
they  do  it  because  they  believe  the  First  Presidency  to  be 
chosen  of  God.  They  may  have  different  views  on  many  things ; 
but  when  the  First  Presidency  gives  counsel,  every  man  that 
has  the  Spirit  of  God  accepts  that  counsel."  Now  all  this  yield- 
ing of  individual  independence  of  thought  may  suffice  for  relig- 
ious uses  and  purposes;  but  when  such  machinery  is  used  to 
enforce  conviction  and  action  within  the  sphere  of  a  man's  poli- 
tical agency,  such  as  the  signing  of  a  "  political  document,"  it 
is  in  direct  conflict  with  the  spirit  and  genius  of  our  institu- 
tions; it  is  a  matter  that  demands  notice  from  the  world,  and 
every  loyal  citizen  should  enter  a  protest  against  such  methods 
when  carried  into  politics.  Moreover,  the  First  Presidency  is 
recreant  to  its  own  pledges  when  it  undertakes  to  enforce  politi- 
cal action  through  its  own  alleged  inspiration. 


CHAPTER  THIRD. 


MOSES  THATCHER  DEPOSED. 

Subsequent  to  the  October  Conference  there  was  a  consid- 
erable correspondence  between  Moses  Thatcher  and  Lorenzo 
Snow,  President  of  the  Quorum  of  Apostles;  and  as  important 
items  appear  in  the  letters,  the  greater  portion  of  them  are  here- 
with presented  in  the  order  of  their  dates.  The  first  letter 
recites  Mr.  Thatcher's  exclusion  from  the  Temple  after  having 
been  invited  by  F.  D.  Richards  to  meet  with  the  Apostles  there- 
in. The  "notice"  to  which  allusion  is  made  is  as  follows^ 
having  appeared  in  the  News,  October  15th : — 

NOTICE. 

To  the  OflScers  and  Members  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter-day 
Saints: 

It  having  been  reported  to  us  that  Brother  Moses  Thatcher  has  on 
three  different  occasions  recently  addressed  congregations  of  the  Saints  at 
Logan,  Cache  Valley,  this,  therefore,  is  to  notify  you  that  by  action  of  the 
Council  of  First  Presidency  and  Apostles  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ 
of  Latter-day  Saints,  the  name  of  Moses  Thatcher  was  not  presented  at 
the  General  Conferences  of  April  and  October,  1896,  to  be  sustained  in  his 
oflBce  as  an  Apostle;  and  that  this  action  of  the  authorities  suspending 
him  from  exercising  any  of  the  functions  of  the  Priesthood,  that  is,  from 
preaching  the  Gospel  or  administering  in  any  of  the  ordinances  thereof, 
until  he,  by  making  satisfactory  amends  to  his  fellow  servants,  should  be 
restored  to  their  fellowship  and  that  of  the  Church. 

WiLFORD  Woodruff, 
George  Q,  Cannon, 
Joseph  F.  Smith; 

First  Presidency. 

THATCHER  TO  SNOW. 

No.  101  N.  West  Temple  St.        ) 
Salt  Lake  City,  October  16, 1896.    j 

Elder  Lorenzo  Snow,  President  of  the  Twelve  Apostles  of  the  Church  of 
Jesus  Christ  of  Latter-Day  Saints: 

Dear  Brethren: — Having  in  mind  the  utterances  of  my  file  leaders 
and  others  at  the  late  semi-annual  Conference,  respecting  myself  and  the 
attitude  in  which  I  was  placed  toward  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  those  in 


MOSES   THATCHER  DEPOSED.  28 

authority  over  me  in  the  holy  priesthood,  and  desiring,  if  possible,  to  be  in 
harmony  with  the  quorum  over  which  you  preside,  and  with  that  of  the 
First  Presidency  of  the  Church.  I  endeavored  to  meet  with  you  and  the 
brethren  at  their  weekly  gathering  on  Thursday,  the  15th  inst.,  but  upon 
appearing  at  the  door  of  the  Temple,  was  denied  admittance. 

Later  in  the  day  I  was  furnished  by  the  secretary,  George  F.  Gibbs, 
a  copy  of  the  general  "notice"  to  the  Latter-Day  Saints,  as  published  in 
the  Deseret  Evening  News  of  October  15th.  That  was  the  first  notification 
received  of  the  intended  suspension  of  the  functions  of  the  priesthood  held 
by  me.  I  was  aware  that  my  name  had  not  been  presented  and  sustained 
by  the  vote  of  the  Saints  assembled  in  Conference  on  April  and  October 
last,  but  no  intimation  had  been  given  that  such  action  deprived  me  of  the 
priesthood  or  in  any  way  suspended  its  functions.  Had  I  received  an  author- 
itative intimation  that  such  was  the  intention,  or  was  in  any  sense  thought 
to  be  desirable,  I  would  have,  if  possible,  avoided  occasion  for  complaint 
on  that  point. 

Now,  since  I  am  denied  the  privilege  of  meeting  your  quorum  for  the 
purpose  explained  herein,  I  humbly  and  respectfully  ask  you  to  furnish 
me  in  writing,  conveying  in  specific  detail  the  items  of  all  charges  of 
wrong-doing  which  my  brethren  may  think  proper,  or  feel  constrained  to 
bring  against  me  as  objections  to  my  further  continuance  as  an  Apostle 
and  fellow  laborer  with  them  in  the  cause  and  Church  of  the  Master,  our 
Savior,  to  whom  I  also  have  dedicated  all  I  have  or  may  hereafter  be. 

Until  the  remarks  of  the  brethren  delivered  at  the  last  General  Con- 
ference, as  they  appeared  published  in  the  daily  press  of  this  city  apprised 
me  of  it,  I  did  not  know  that  they  held  aught  against  me,  or  premeditated 
the  planting  of  charges  against  me  on  any  matter  whatever  other  than 
that  of  my  failure  to  indorse  the  "declaration"  issued  last  April  relating  to 
political  affairs  past  and  present  and  future,  and  possibly  complaints  also 
respecting  my  political  attitude  as  relating  to  political  methods,  words 
and  works  since  the  division  of  the  people  in  Utah  on  national  party  lines. 

I  had  understood  that  my  failure  to  see  eye  to  eye  with  my  brethren 
on  those  civil  matters,  and  for  not  on  short  notice  endorsing  the  "declara- 
tion" caused  the  withholding  of  my  name  from  the  list  of  Apostles  as  pre- 
sented to  the  Saints  at  the  April  Conference. 

The  sacred,  and  as  I  believed,  holy  bond  of  fellowship  openly  con- 
fessed and  candidly  proclaimed  many  times— each  to  the  other — during  all 
the  years  of  your  presidency  over  the  Twelve  Apostles,  and  the  sacred 
places  and  loving  manner  in  which  that  bond  of  "fellowship"  was,  as  I 
thought,  cemented  together  at  least  for  all  past  and  present  time,  if  not 
for  eternity,  banished  from  my  heart  distrust  of  any  kind,  and  naturally 
precluded  apprehension,  fear  and  thought  of  such  darkness  and  ambition 
as  that  publicly  proclaimed  as  having  been  the  condition  in  which  I  had 
continued  for  a  number  of  years. 

Under  the  newly-revealed  conditions,  as  stated  at  Conference,  it  may 
be  seen  how  naturally  and  how  easily  harmony  might  fail  of  its  fullest 
fruition  of  confidence,  hope  and  trustful  love,  for  how  could  those  in  the 
light  harmonize  with  one  in  the  dark?  Or  how  could  one  in  the  dark  go 
to  the  light  when  not  informed  respecting  his  darkness? 

It  appears  useless  at  this  time,  and  as  a  waste  of  valuable  time,  for 
me  to  ever  allude  to  the  love  and  labor  of  the  past,  for  those  whose  esteem 


24  THE  LATE  MANIFESTO   IN  POLITICS. 

and  confidence  I  have  tried  hard  to  merit  may  well  be  trusted  to  remem- 
ber of  that  all  that  is  necessary. 

For  the  light  and  for  truth  and  for  justice  as  defended  in  the  laws  of 
God  I  have  sacrificed  some  things,  and  am  willing  when  necessary  to  sac- 
rifice all  things.  While  greatly  improved  in  health,  I  am  not  yet  in  a  physi- 
cal condition  to  endure  a  prolonged  or  severe  strain  of  body  or  mind;  and, 
therefore,  trust  that  I  shall  be  given  sufficient  time  in  which  to  answer  all 
charges  that  may  be  brought  against  me.  x\b  to  anything  I  have  said  or 
done  contrary  to  the  commandments  of  God,  I  hold  myself  bound  under 
His  law  to  answer  or  plead  guilty  whenever  the  charges  are  made  specific, 
and  have  sufficient  time  so  that  the  exertion  shall  not  again  force  me  to- 
ward the  grave,  on  the  verge  of  which,  as  you  know,  I  have  so  long 
lingered. 

My  desire  is  to  do  right,  and  to  be  united  with  the  brethren  and 
those  who  preside  over  me,  in  all  that  will  promote  the  glory  of  God  and 
the  salvation  of  man.  For,  as  I  comprehend  the  lessons  of  history,  he  who 
cannot  be  governed  is  utterly  unfit  to  attempt  government  even  in  the 
family  relation. 

Praying  the  Lord  God  of  Israel  to  bless  you,  and  expressing  heartfelt 
gratitude  to  you  for  the  considerate,  humble  and  loving  manner  in  which 
you  have  presided  over  your  brethren  of  the  Apostles,  and  trusting  that 
you  are  not  unwilling  that  I  should  still  subscribe  myself  as  your  brother 
in  the  gospel,  I  remain,  as  heretofore,  devoted^  to  the  cause  of  righteous- 
ness—the cause  of  Christ. 

Moses  Thatcher. 

SNOW  TO  THATCHER. 

Salt  Lake  City,  Utah,  Oct.  23, 1896. 
Elder  Moses  Thatcher,  City: 

Dear  Brother: — Your  communication  of  the  16th  inst.,  was  received 
by  me  on  the  19th,  and  its  contents  carefully  noted. 

Since  the  writing  of  your  letter  the  full  stenographic  report  of  the 
remarks  of  the  brethren  made  at  our  late  General  Conference  has  been 
published  in  the  Deseret  News,  in  which  their  feelings  concerning  you  are 
quite  fully  expressed,  and  you  not  having  read  these  published  remarks 
prior  to  the  writing  of  your  communication,  I  take  it  for  granted  that  it  will 
not  be  necessary  for  me  to  explain  or  answer  further.  With  kindest  re- 
gards, your  brother. 

Lorenzo  Snow. 

THATCHER  TO  SNOW. 

Salt  Lake  City,  Utah,  Nov.  4, 1896. 
Elder  Lorenzo  Snow,  Preaideot  of  the  Quorum  of  the  Twelve  Apostles: 

Dear  Brother: — While  at  Logan  last  week  I  learned  through  a  let- 
ter that  Elder  Franklin  D.  Richards  had  called  at  my  home  for  the  pur- 
pose of  informing  me  that  yourself  and  the  Quorum  of  Apostles  desired  to 
meet  me,  and  thought  arrangements  could  be  made  to  meet  in  the  annex 
of  the  Temple  if  I  could  name  a  date  when  I  could  be  present.  Apprecia- 
ting this  kindness  and  desiring  very  much  to  meet  again  with  my  brethren 
that  they  might  know  the  inmost  feelings  of  my  heart  by  personal  contact 
with  the  spirit  that  possesses  me,  I  at  once  sent  word  desiring  that  you 


MOSES   THATCHER   DEPOSED.  25 

would  Eame  the  time  and  place  of  meeting,  so  as  to  conform  to  your  own 
and  the  convenience  of  the  brethren,  rather  than  to  that  of  my  own.  It 
was  my  intention  to  go  north  from  Logan  to  see  my  brother,  who  resides 
in  Idaho,  but  on  receiving  no  word  as  to  when  I  could  meet  with  you,  I 
returned  to  this  city  Thursday — a  week  ago  tomorrow — and  have  daily 
expected  to  hear  respecting  a  time  when  I  could  see  the  brethren  once 
more  together.  No  word  having  reached  me  respecting  that  matter,  I 
adopt  this  means  of  respectfully  asking  you  when  such  meeting  can  be  ar- 
ranged. As  early  a  reply  as  convenient  will  greatly  oblige.  Your  brother 
in  the  gospel. 

Moses  Thatcher. 

That  delays  may  be  avoided,  I  send  this  by  Elder  C.  W.  Penrose,  who 
has  kindly  consented  to  deliver  it  promptly  to  you.  M.  T. 

SNOW  TO  THATCHER. 

Salt  Lake  City,  Utah,  November  6,  1896. 
Elder  Moses  Thatcher:— 

Dear  Brother  : — Your  letter  of  the  4th  instant  received.  In  it 
you  state  that  you  learned  last  week  at  Logan,  through  letter,  that 
Brother  Franklin  D.  Richards  had  called  at  your  home  for  the  pur- 
pose of  informing  you  that  myeelf  and  the  Quorum  of  Apostles  desired 
to  meet  you  in  the  annex  of  the  Temple,  also  intimating  that  it  is 
our  desire  that  you  name  a  date  when  you  could  be  present.  I  wish  to 
correct  this  impression,  the  Quorum,  as  such,  not  having  expressed  them- 
selves in  regard  to  this  matter.  Doubtless  the  misunderstanding  arose 
from  the  fact  that  some  time  ago  an  appointment  was  made  to  meet 
with  you  in  the  Temple  annex,  which  appointment  was  not  kept  owing  to 
your  physical  inability  to  do  so,  as  we  learned  verbally  through  Brother 
John  Henry  Smith.  But  since  then  the  Council  of  First  Presidency  and 
Apostles  felt  it  to  be  due  to  the  late  General  Conference  that  something 
should  be  said  by  way  of  explanation  for  withholding  the  presentation  of 
your  name  to  be  sustained  by  the  Conference  as  one  of  the  general  author- 
ities of  the  Church,  which  resulted  in  the  remarks  of  the  brethren  on  this 
subject  as  published  in  full  in  the  News.  Since  then,  also,  a  card  has  been 
published  over  the  signatures  of  the  First  Presidency,  informing  the  officers 
and  members  of  the  Church  that  the  withholding  of  your  name  from  go- 
ing before  the  last  two  Conferences  suspended  you  from  exercising  the 
functions  of  your  priesthood,  the  publication  of  this  card  having  been 
made  necessary,  contrary  to  our  expectations,  by  your  addressing  public 
congregations  of  the  Saints  in  your  suspended  condition.  Since  then,  too, 
I  sent  you  the  following,  under  date  of  23rd  ult.: — (See  above.) 

I  may  say  that  the  foregoing  was  in  response  to  your  communication 
in  which  you  desired  that  whatever  charges  your  brethren  might  think 
proper  to  make  against  you,  that  the  same  be  specifically  made  in  writing, 
etc.  In  penning  the  foregoing  I  hoped  that  further  correspondence 
would  not  be  indulged  in  by  you,  but  that  just  as  soon  as  you  fully  realized 
your  true  position  you  would  not  rest  until  you  had  conferred  with  me 
personally  in  regard  to  arranging  for  an  interview  with  your  Quorum  for 
the  purpose  of  regaining  your  fellowship.  I  repeat,  I  hoped  your 
feelings  would  have  prompted  you  to  do  this,  and  I  felt  warranted  in 


26  THE   LATE  MANIFESTO   IN   POLITICS. 

believing  that  your  wisdom  would  have  led  you  to  do  it ;  but  in  this  I  was 
disappointed,  and  so  were  your  brethren  one  and  all. 

This  being  the  condition  of  affairs,  you  were  not  admitted  to  the 
Temple  on  the  forenoon  of  Thursday,  15th  ult.;  for  the  further  reason,  also, 
that  the  meeting  of  that  day  was  not  a  meeting  of  our  quorum,  but  the 
regular  Council  meeting  of  the  First  Presidency  and  Apostles,  at  which 
business  of  pressing  importance  was  to  be  attended  to,  which  could  not  be 
deferred  for  consideration  of  your  suspension. 

In  accordance  with  your  wishes  for  a  meeting,  I  take  pleasure  in 
appointing  2  o'clock  on  Thursday  next  at  the  Historian's  office,  upon  which 
occasion  the  Quorum  will  be  pleased  to  meet  with  you.  With  kindest 
regards,  your  brother  and  fellow  servant. 

Lorenzo  Snow. 

The  following  letter  presents  a  general  review  of  all  the 
facts  and  circumstances  leading  up  to  and  terminating  in  Mr. 
Thatcher's  deposition  from  the  Priesthood  : 

THATCHER  TO  SNOW. 

Logan,  Cache  County,  Utah,  November  11, 1896. 
Elder  Lorenzo  Snow,  President  of  the  Quorum  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  and 

Members  of  the  Quorum: — 

Dear  Brethren: — By  way  of  preface  to  a  request  I  am  about  to 
make  of  you,  my  brethren,  I  humbly  ask  your  attention  while  I  review, 
briefly,  the  reasons  which  lead  me  to  make  it. 

My  name  was  regularly  presented  to  the  people  and  I  was  regularly 
sustained  in  my  position  in  the  Church  until  the  6th  day  of  April,  1896. 
On  that  day  at  noon,  and  never  before,  a  document  was  presented  to  me  for 
my  signature.  I  was  then  confined  to  my  room  with  what  I  considered 
at  that  time  a  fatal  illness.  I  was  given  about  an  hour  and  thirty  minutes 
within  which  to  consider  a  matter  of  vital  importance,  not  only  to  myself, 
but,  in  my  opinion,  to  the  people.  I  could  not  see  my  way  clear  to  sign  it 
without  stultification,  and  I  so  informed  you  by  letter.  In  about  two  hours 
from  that  time  my  name  was  unceremoniously  dropped  from  the  list  of 
Apostles  presented  to  the  Conference  for  confirmation.  No  reason  for 
your  action  was  given,  and  my  letter  of  explanation  was,  for  reasons  best 
known  to  yourselves,  supressed. 

Matters  went  on  in  this  way,  until  a  day  or  so  before  the  funeral  of 
our  lamented  brother,  Abraham  H.  Cannon,  I  called  upon  President 
Woodruff  and  told  him  I  desired  to  be  relieved  of  all  responsibility  for 
awhile  in  order  to  regain  my  health  and  strength.  He  acquiesced.  Subse- 
quently, I  was  informed  by  Brother  C.  W.  Penrose  that  the  brethren  were 
willing  for  me  to  lay  aside  all  care  and  go  away  if  I  desired,  and  that 
nothing  further  would  be  done  concerning  my  standing  until  I  should  be 
fully  restored  to  health,  if  it  took  six  months,  a  year  or  even  two  years. 
And  these  representations  of  Brother  Penrose  have  since  been  confirmed 
by  several  members  of  our  quorum. 

I  then  went  to  Logan  canyon,  where  I  remained  about  six  weeks. 
While  there  rumors  began  to  circulate  that  my  case  would  be  taken  up, 
notwithstanding  the  promisee  which  had  been  given  me.     These  rumors 


MOSES   THATCHER  DEPOSED.  27 

did  not  reach  me  at  the  time,  but  they  reached  my  son,  Moses  Thatcher, 
Jr.,  who  at  once  went  to  the  city,  where  he  called  at  President  Woodruff's 
oflBce  in  company  with  his  brother  Preston  and  Bishop  W.  B.  Preston. 
While  waiting  for  an  opportunity  to  see  President  Woodruff,  Brother 
Brigham  Young  entered  and  to  him  my  son  told  the  object  of  his  visit. 
Then  Brother  Young  went  into  the  President's  office.  After  awhile  Presi- 
dent Snow,  Apostles  Richards,  Young  and  Smith,  Bishop  Preston  and 
others  came  out  from  President  Woodruff's  office  and  assured  my  son  that 
they  had  delivered  his  message  to  President  Woodruff,  and  that  he  and  all 
the  brethren  present  had  unanimously  decided  that  nothing  whatever 
would  be  done  in  my  matter  until  I  felt  mentally  and  physically  able  to 
meet  with  the  brethren.  President  Snow  bade  my  son  to  convey  to  me 
that  message,  which  he  did  by  returning  home  and  driving  to  my  camp 
thirty  miles  up  Logan  canyon.  When  President  Woodruff  at  that  meeting 
was  reminded  of  his  former  promise  to  me,  he  said  that  he  had  not  seem 
me,  and  that  I  had  not  called  on  him  for  many  months.  Bishop  Preston 
reminded  him  of  my  visit  a  day  or  so  before  Brother  Abraham  H.  Cannon's 
funeral,  and  of  our  conversation  at  the  time,  whereupon  he  recalled  the 
circumstance  and  then  said  that  he  remembered  distinctly  what  had  trans- 
pired on  that  occasion. 

Had  it  not  been  for  the  assurances  and  reassurances  given  me  I 
would  have  attended  the  Conference  before  which,  in  my  absence,  I  was 
publicly  accused. 

Upon  my  return  to  Logan  from  the  canyon  I  was  dumfounded  on 
reading  and  hearing  reports  of  the  treatment  I  had  received  at  Conference. 
Feeling,  however,  that  there  might  be  some  reason  unknown  to  me  for 
your  apparent  change  of  mind,  I  went  to  Salt  Lake  on  purpose  to  ascertain 
the  truth,  if  possible.  On  my  way  to  the  office  of  President  Woodruff, 
Wednesday,  October  llth,  I  met  Brother  Franklin  D.  Richards.  I  told 
him  that  I  expected  to  meet  with  my  Quorum  at  their  regular  meeting  on 
the  following  day.  He  replied  that  they  would  be  delighted  to  have  me. 
I  asked  if  there  could  be  any  objection  to  it.  He  assured  me  that  there 
would  not  be,  and  that  he  could  vote  for  it  with  both  hands. 

Accordingly,  I  went  to  the  Temple  next  day  at  the  regular  hour,  and 
was  informed  that  the  Presidency  of  the  church  had  given  orders  not  to 
admit  me  into  the  Temple.  I  was  surprised  and  grieved,  but  one  thought 
consoled  me,  and  that  was  that  during  the  last  six  months  of  the  construc- 
tion of  the  Temple,  now  closed  against  me,  I  had  given  $3500  toward  its 
completion,  and  if  I  had  it  to  do  over  again  I  would  give  even  more.  No 
reason  was  given  for  refusing  me  admittance;  no  explanation  was  offered, 
not  even  by  the  one  who  had  assured  me  of  a  welcome  with  both  hands. 

I  went  home  distressed  and  with  such  a  flood  of  sorrow  in  my  heart 
compared  with  which  the  pain  and  sufferings  of  five  years  were  like  a  drop 
to  the  ocean.  I  asked  God  for  light  and  wisdom;  I  searched  the  innermost 
depths  of  my  soul;  I  reviewed  my  whole  life  and  my  record  in  the  Church 
to  find  some  excuse  for  the  action  taken,  but  in  vain.  As  it  seemed  I  was 
cut  off  from  communication  with  you  in  every  other  way,  I  wrote  to  the 
president  of  my  Quorum  asking  what  my  brethren  had  against  me,  plead- 
ing humbly  and  respectfully  for  the  charges,  specifically  stated,  that  I 
might  have  a  chance  to  prove  my  innocence  or  plead  guilty. 

Before  I  heard  from  you  I  had  gone  to  Logan  with  the  intention  of 
visiting  my  brother,  who  resides  in  Idaho.     While  in  Logan  word  reached 


28  THE   LATE  MANIFESTO   IN   POLITICS. 

me  that  Brother  Franklin  D.  Richards  had  called  at  my  home  in  Salt  Lake 
City  to  see  me.  He  left  word  that  my  Quorum  desired  me  to  meet  with 
them,  and  thought  such  meeting  might  be  arranged  in  the  Temple  annex 
if  I  would  name  the  day  when  I  could  be  present .  I  immediately  sent 
word  to  him  that  I  did  not  desire  to  set  the  time,  but  would  leave  the  time 
and  place  of  meeting  with  the  Quorum,  desiring  to  conform  to  their  con- 
venience. 

Not  hearing  anything  further  about  the  matter,  I  returned  to  Salt 
Lake,  where  I  waited  several  days  and  wrote  you  again,  meantime  receiv- 
ing the  following  answer  to  my  request  for  specific  charges.  —(See  above 
October  23d.) 

This  communication  changed  the  face  of  the  whole  matter,  because 
in  it  I  am  cited  to  the  public  press  to  read  the  accusations  made  against 
me  in  public  meetings  before  the  Saints  in  General  Conference  assembled 
and  before  the  world.  I  am  told  to  go  to  a  newspaper  and  there  read  what 
my  brethren  have  said  about  me  and  against  me,  and  to  these  public 
utterances  published  to  all  mankind  I  am  to  make  my  answer. 

But,  owing  to  the  word  sent  me  by  Brother  F.  D.  Richards,  I  still 
thought  you  might  possibly  have  other  communications  to  make,  outside 
of  the  published  declarations  to  which  you  referred  me  in  your  letter  of 
October  23rd,  and  being  in  the  city  in  response  to  that  request,  I  therefore 
wrote  you  on  the  4th  of  November  asking  for  information  as  to  when  that 
meeting  would  be  called. 

In  reply  I  received  a  letter  from  you.  President  Snow,  dated  Novem- 
ber 6, 1896,  in  which  you  repeat  in  full  your  letter  of  October  23rd,  thus 
indicating  that  the  public  declarations  made  in  Conference  covered  all  the 
charges  against  me.  You  say  further  that  you  had  hoped  that  I  would 
write  no  more  after  receiving  your  letter  of  October  23rd,  and  that  I  should 
have  lost  no  time  in  seeking  you  personally  after  receiving  that  letter,  and 
that  you,  one  and  all,  were  disappointed  at  my  lack  of  wisdom  after  receiv- 
ing that  letter,  and  that  therefore  the  Temple  was  closed  against  me  on  the 
15th  day  of  October.  Believe  me,  it  is  hard  to  understand  how  any  supposed 
disregard  of  a  letter  written  October  23rd  should  cause  the  Temple  to  be 
closed  against  me  on  the  15th  of  the  same  month,  or  eight  days  before.  Be 
that  as  it  may,  I  desire  to  make  a  simple  request  of  you,  to  which, lam 
sure,  your  sense  of  justice  and  honor  will  acquiesce.  It  is  this:  As  I  was 
accused  in  public  I  desire  to  meet  the  charges  in  public.  Although  the 
judges  before  whom  I  am  to  be  arraigned  have  nearly  all  expressed  an 
opinion  as  to  the  merits  of  my  case;  although  my  accusers  are  to  sit  in 
judgment  over  me;  although  a  verdict  has  already  been  delivered  against 
me  and  without  a  hearing,  and  in  the  most  public  manner;  still  will  I  be 
willing  to  submit  my  case  to  them,  to  place  in  their  keeping,  not  only  my 
life,  but  that  which  is  dearer  to  me  than  life— only  asking  for  the  defense 
the  same  publicity  which  has  been  given  the  prosecution. 

It  has  been  written :  "If  any  shall  offend  in  secret  he  shall  be  re- 
buked in  secret,"  but  I  have  been  rebuked  in  public,  and  therefore  ask  a 
hearing  in  public.  I  am  moved  to  make  this  request,  not  only  because  my 
brethren  have,  one  after  another,  accused  me  before  cocgregations  of 
Saints,  nor  because  the  door  of  the  Temple  has  been  closed  in  my  face,  nor 
because  Brother  Joseph  F.  Smith  in  the  last  Logan  Conference  classed  me 
as  one  of  the  enemies  of  the  Church  and  publicly  reprimanded  my  former 
bishop  for  mentioning  me  in  his  prayers;  but  also  because,  in  a  conversa- 


MOSES  THATCHER  DEPOSED.  29 

tion  with  President  Lorenzo  Snow,  on  the  train  between  Salt  Lake  and 
Brigham  City  last  Saturday,  November  7th,  I  was  given  the  impression 
that  I  have  absolutely  nothing  to  hope  for  in  any  other  than  a  public  hear- 
ing such  as  I  now  request.  I  shall  not  trouble  my  brethren,  therefore,  to 
convene  in  a  special  meeting  named  for  Thursday  at  2  o'clock  p.  m.  in  the 
Historian's  oflBce. 

In  conclusion,  brethren,  I  desire  to  say  that  nothing  could  shake  my 
faith  in  the  everlasting  Gospel.  All  the  trials  and  afflictions  through  which 
I  have  passed  leave  me  firm  in  my  belief.  I  am  devoted  to  my  Church,  my 
people  and  my  God.  I  have  willingly  made  every  sacrifice  required  of  me. 
I  have  given  freely  of  my  time  and  means  to  the  upbuilding  of  the  King- 
dom of  God.  I  have  never  shirked  a  responsibility  placed  upon  me.  If  I 
have  done  wrong  it  is  because  I  am  mortal,  but  I  bear  no  consciousness  of 
wrongful  intent.  If  I  have  not  been  in  harmony  with  my  brethren  of  the 
Quorum  of  the  Twelve  on  religious  matters  I  was  not  aware  of  it  till  their 
public  declarations  to  that  effect.  Have  not  frequent  authoritative  declar- 
ations been  made  in  public  during  the  last  few  years  as  to  the  perfect  har- 
mony existing  between  all  the  members  of  the  Quorum  and  the  First 
Presidency  ?  With  those  made  so  often  in  sacred  places  you  are  familiar. 
It  is  very  hard  to  understand  why,  in  the  face  of  these,  the  public  should 
now  be  informed  that  we  have  not  been  in  harmony  for  years. 

Brethren,  this  matter  may  seem  trivial  to  you,  for  in  your  hands  is 
placed  the  judgment,  while  I  stand  in  the  position  of  a  victim.  Misappre- 
hension as  to  the  motives  prompting  my  action  during  all  the  years  of  my 
oflBcial  life  may  be  the  result  of  misinformation ;  and  prejudice,  once 
aroused,  increases,  as  you  know,  like  an  avalanche.  If  there  is  aught  in 
word  or  act  of  mine  since  I  have  been  a  member  of  the  Church  that  I 
would  not  have  published  upon  the  housetops,  I  do  not  know  it;  and  yet  I 
am  aware  that  any  man  is  liable  to  become  darkened  in  his  mind,  who, 
nevertheless,  may  still  desire  to  do  right  and  be  just  in  all  things.  There- 
fore, I  beseech  you,  that  mercy  have  its  claims,  then  award  to  justice, 
under  the  laws  of  God,  all  its  demands  ;  remembering  always  that  it  is  a 
serious  matter  to  judge  even  in  small  concerns,  but  it  becomes  of  great 
magnitude  when  involving  that  which  is  more  precious  than  life. 
Your  brother  and  fellow-laborer, 

Moses  Thatcher. 


SNOW  TO  THATCHER. 

Salt  Lake  City,  Utah,  Nov.  12, 1896. 
Elder  Moses  Thatcher,  Logan: 

Dear  Brother: — This  is  to  notify  you  that  at  a  meeting  of  the  Quo- 
rum of  Twelve  Apostles  held  to-day,  it  was  resolved  that  as  you  are  not  in 
fellowship  with  the  Council,  your  case  will  be  called  up  for  consideration 
and  action  at  a  meeting  to  be  held  for  that  purpose  at  10  a.  m.  on  Thurs- 
day, the  19th  inst.,  at  the  Historian's  office,  this  city. 
With  kind  regards,  your  brother, 

Lorenzo  Snow. 


30  THE   LATE   MANIFESTO  IN   POLITICS. 

THATCHER  TO  SNOW. 

101  N.  West  Temple  Street,       ) 
Salt  Lake  City,  Utah,  Nov.  17, 1896. ) 

Elder  Lorenzo  Snow,  President  of  the  Quorum  of  the  Twelve  Apostles: 

Dear  Brother:— On  the  11th  inst.  I  wrote  you  a  somewhat  lengthy 
letter  in  which,  after  reviewing  my  case,  I  asked  that  the  same  publicity 
be  given  my  defense  as  that  given  to  the  complaints  and  accusations  made 
against  me. 

My  son,  George  F.  Thatcher,  delivered  to  you  that  communication 
about  10  o'clock  a.  m.,  the  following  day.  At  noon  on  the  13th  inst., 
Brother  Isaac  Smith  of  the  Cache  Stake  Presidency  handed  me  a  letter 
from  you,  of  which  the  following  is  a  copy.     (See  above,  Nov.  12.) 

As  no  reference  is  made  to  my  communication  of  the  11th  inst.  in 
yours  of  the  12th,  I  am  in  doubt  as  to  whether  the  latter  was  intended  to 
be  a  reply  to  the  former  or  not;  but  as  no  other  word  has  reached  me  I 
suppose  I  should  so  regard  it,  especially  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  action 
of  the  Apostles  respecting  my  case  was  evidently  taken  after  the  delivery 
to  you  of  my  letter  of  the  11th  inst. 

You  say:  "Your  case  will  be  called  up  for  consideration  and  action  at 
a  meeting  to  be  held  for  that  purpose  at  10  a.  m.,  on  Thursday,  the  19th 
inst."  Am  I  warranted  in  concluding  that  you  intended  that  declaration 
to  be  a  denial  of  my  request  for  a  public  hearing  ?  And,  if  so,  am  I  to 
understand  that  "consideration"  and  "action"  mean  that  my  trial  will  com- 
mence on  the  date  and  at  the  time  and  place  mentioned?  If  that  is  the 
intention,  am  I,  as  heretofore  directed  by  you,  to  defend  myself  against  or 
plead  to  the  charges  as  published  in  the  Deseret Evening  News  of  October 
17th?  And,  if  so,  will  the  charges  be  presented  one  at  a  time,  or  considered 
as  a  whole?  In  either  event,  will  those  making  the  charges  be  present  to 
hear  my  witnesses  ?  Will  I  be  permitted  to  bring  with  me  and  introduce 
the  testimony  of  those  willing  to  testify  in  my  behalf?  Is  the  "Manifesto" 
regarding  Church  discipline  in  political  affairs  and  for  the  failure  to  sign 
which,  it  was  understood  at  the  time,  I  was  suspended  from  exercising  the 
functions  of  the  Apostleship,  to  be  introduced  as  any  part  of  the  charges 
against  me? 

As  I  will  have  to  call  witnesses  from  various  points,  I  shall  greatly 
appreciate  as  early  a  reply  as  possible. 

Very  respectfully  your  brother  in  the  Gospel, 

Moses  Thatcher. 

SNOW  TO  THATCHER. 

November  18, 1896. 
Elder  Moses  Thatcher,  City: 

Dear  Brother: — I  am  in  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the  17th  inst.,  in 
which  you  advise  me  of  the  receipt  by  you  of  a  communication  signed  by 
myself  in  behalf  of  the  Quorum  of  Twelve,  and  dated  November  12.  You 
ask  whether  my  letter  was  intended  to  be  a  reply  to  a  former  communica- 
tion which  you  sent  to  me,  in  which  you  had  requested  a  public  hearing. 
You  also  ask,  if  this  be  so,  are  you  to  understand  that  "consideration"  and 
"action"  mean  that  your  trial  will  commence  on  the  day  and  at  the  time 
and  place  mentioned;  and  further,  if  that  is  the  intention,  are  you  to 


MOSES  THATCHER   DEPOSED.  31 

defend  yourself  or  plead  to  the  charges  as  published  in  the  Deseret  Even' 
ing  News  of  October  17th,  and,  if  so,  will  the  charges  be  presented  one  at  a 
time  or  considered  as  a  whole;  also,  in  either  event,  will  those  making  the 
charges  be  present  to  hear  your  witnesses,  and  will  you  be  permitted  to 
bring  with  you  and  introduce  the  testimonies  of  those  willing  to  testify  in 
your  behalf.  You  further  ask  whether  the  document  regarding  Church 
discipline  which  you  failed  to  sign  will  be  introduced  as  any  part  of  the 
charges  against  you. 

In  reply  to  these  queries,  I  have  to  say  that  the  Quorum  of  the 
Apostles  do  not  consider  your  request  for  public  hearing  a  proper  one — 
for  this  reason:  It  is  not  your  standing  in  the  Church  that  is  at  issue,  but 
your  fellowship  with  the  brethren  of  your  own  Quorum.  This  is  the  busi- 
ness to  be  settled  between  yourself  and  us,  and  when  this  is  settled 
satisfactorily  there  will  be  no  diflBculty  remaining  concerning  the  docu- 
ment on  Church  discipline.  You  have  been  informed  on  several  occasions 
that  the  members  of  your  Quorum  could  not  fellowship  your  spirit  and 
conduct.  Several  of  them  have  waited  upon  you  and  informed  you  that 
the  Twelve  felt  that  you  should  make  amends  and  take  proper  steps  to  re- 
store yourself  to  their  fellowship.  This,  therefore,  is  not  a  matter  for  the 
general  public,  nor  for  the  presence  of  witnesses.  You  yourself  are  the 
principal  party  interested,  and  if  you  can  take  the  necessary  steps — which 
are  altogether  within  your  own  power — there  need  not  be  the  least  diffi- 
culty about  you  having  the  fellowship  of  your  fellow  Apostles.  This  has 
always  been  the  course  taken  in  our  Church  from  the  beginning  to  the 
present  time.  If  the  question  of  your  fellowship  with  the  Church  should 
be  brought  forward  at  any  time,  it  will  then  be  for  the  Church  to  give  you 
such  a  hearing  as  will  enable  its  members  to  express  themselves  as  to 
whether  they  will  hold  you  in  fellowship  or  not. 

With  kind  regards,  your  Brother, 

Lorenzo  Snow. 

THATCHER  TO  SNOW. 

No.  101  N.  West  Temple  St.,  ) 

Salt  Lake  City,  Utah,  November  18, 1896.  \ 

Elder  Lorenzo  Snow,  President  of  the  Quorum  of  Twelve: 

Dear  Brother: — Your  esteemed  favor  of  even  date,  replying  to  my 
letter  of  yesterday,  was  handed  me  this  evening  and  its  contents  have  been 
carefully  considered.  As  there  is  to  be  no  trial  of  my  case,  and  as  I  am 
not  requested  to  be  present,  I  take  it  to  be  the  purpose,  as  heretofore 
notified,  that  the  quorum  meet  on  the  morrow  for  the  purpose  of  consider- 
ing my  case  and  determining  what  I  must  do  before  I  can  again  enjoy  the 
fellowship  of  my  brethren  of  the  Twelve  Apostles. 

Beyond  the  public  action  taken  at  the  annual  Conference  on  the  6th 
of  April  last,  which  suspended  me  within  a  few  hours  after  my  failure  to 
sign  the  document  regarding  Church  disciplioe  on  political  matters,  and 
your  citations  to  the  remarks  of  the  brethren  as  published  in  the  Deseret 
News  of  October  17th  about  me,  I  know  of  nothing  upon  which  to  found 
requirements  in  my  case;  and  since  judgment  in  those  matters  has  been 
already  passed,  the  necessity  for  presenting,  through  witnesses  or  other- 
wise, any  defense  in  my  behalf  seems  obviated.  I  can,  therefore,  only  wait 
with  great  concern  and  deep  anxiety  your  findings  and  specifying  the  con- 


32  THE   LATE   MANIFESTO   IN   POLITICS. 

ditione  upon  which  I  may  regain  the  fellowship  of  my  brethren  and  resto- 
ration to  the  official  position  heretofore  held  in  the  Church,  and  the  duties 
and  obligations  of  which  I  have  sought  earnestly,  honestly  and  prayerfully 
to  discharge.  The  thought  of  the  permanent  loss  of  that  exalted  position 
and  of  your  fellowship,  and  of  the  consequent  humiliation  and  bitterness 
that  may  follow,  are  very  dreadful — I  shrink  from  the  contemplation.  It 
seems  a  sad  ending — a  fruitless  reward  for  thirty  years  or  more  of  earnest 
and  devoted  work  in  a  cause  that  has  inspired  and  does  still  inspire  the 
best  efforts  of  a  life  subject,  of  course  to  human  weaknesses  and  human 
errors,  but  nevertheless  devoted  and  true.  I  cannot — brethren  I  utterly 
fail  to  feel  that  I  deserve  the  fate  that  now  seems  hanging  over  me !  Par- 
don, I  did  not  intend  to  plead  my  cause.  Only  let  me  remind  you, 
brethren,  of  how  the  Lord  has  required  us  to  use  the  priesthood — persua- 
sion, gentleness,  brotherly  kindness,  patience,  love.  This  in  the  interest  of 
mercy.  Try  each  of  you  to  place  or  imagine  yourself  placed  in  my  posi- 
tion. Remember  if  you  can,  that  there  is  none  of  you — no,  not  one,  for 
whose  peace  and  happiness  I  would  not  give  all  I  have,  and  for  the  preser- 
vation of  whose  liberties  and  rights  I  would  not,  if  necessary,  sacrifice  even 
my  life.  As  proof,  if  you  require  proof,  I  refer  you  to  records  of  the  past. 
So,  as  you  would  be  judged,  judge  me.  Then  submit  that  judgment,  give 
me  reasonable  time  to  consider  it,  and  if  I  can  harmonize  my  conscience 
and  convictions  respecting  justice,  truth  and  honor  with  your  findings  and 
requirements,  I  shall  do  so  gladly  and  with  a  heart  full  of  grateful 
acknowledgments  to  Him  whose  servants  we  have  all  been  glad  to  be. 

Praying  the  Lord  to  direct  your  minds  in  all  things  and  uphold  and 
sustain  you  now  and  hereafter,  I  remain,  your  fellow  laborer  in  the  gospel. 

Moses  Thatcher. 

In  answer  to  that  appeal  the  following  curt  notice  was  sent: 
SNOW  TO  THATCHER. 


Salt  Lake  City,  Utah,  November  19, 
Hon.  Moses  Thatcher,  City: 

Dear  Brother: — It  becomes  my  painful  duty  as  the  President  of  the 
Twelve  Apostles  to  inform  you  that,  at  a  meeting  of  that  body,  held  to-day, 
November  19, 1896,  at  which  all  the  living  members  of  the  Council,  except- 
ing yourself,  were  present,  it  was  decided,  after  a  full  consideration  and 
individual  expression  of  every  one  present,  to  sever  you  from  the  Council 
of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  and  deprive  you  of  your  Apostleship  and  other 
offices  in  the  priesthood.    I  remain,  your  brother, 

Lorenzo  Snow. 

The  following  notice  appeared  in  the  evening  of  the  same 
day  in  the  Deseret  News  : 

To  the  Officers  and  Members  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter-Day 
Saints : 

This  is  to  inform  you  that  at  a  meeting  of  the  Council  of  Apostles 
held  this  day  (Thursday,  November  19, 1896),  there  being  present  Lorenzo 
Snow,  Franklin  D.  Richards,  Brigham  Young,  Francis  M.  Lyman,  John 
Henry  Smith,  George  Teasdale,  Heber  J.  Grant,  John  W.  Taylor,  Marriner 


MOSES   THATCHER   DEPOSED.  33 

W.  Merrill  and  Anthon  H.Lund,  which  meeting  was  called  for  the  purpose 
of  considering  and  taking  action  on  the  case  of  Elder  Moses  Thatcher — 
and  of  which  meeting  and  its  object  he  had  been  duly  notified — after  a  full 
consideration  of  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  and  after  each  Apostle 
present  had  expressed  himself  upon  the  subject,  it  was  unanimously  de- 
cided that  Moses  Thatcher  be  severed  from  the  Council  of  the  Twelve 
Apostles,  and  that  he  be  deprived  of  his  Apostleship  and  other  ofiices  in 
the  Priesthood. 

Lorenzo  Snow, 
President  Council  of  Twelve  Apostles. 


KEMAEKS. 

We  see  that  Mr.  Thatcher  was  denied  a  public  trial,  although 
h©  sought  diligently  to  have  the  charges  specifically  set  out  and 
passed  on  at  a  public  hearing;  and  this  was  clearly  his  right  as 
an  American  citizen,  and  particularly  because  he  had  been  by  a 
concerted  action  among  certain  leaders  accused  in  open  Confer- 
ence. Public  sentiment,  to  which  the  speakers  of  the  Conference 
appealed,  should  unite  with  the  broader  sentiment  of  honest 
men  throughout  the  world  in  condemnation  of  a  star  chamber 
procedure  that  persistently  refuses  to  make  a  defense  as  public 
SL'i  the  accusations.  It  shows  unmistakable  indications  of  nar- 
rowness, prejudice  and  injustice. 

President  Snow  says  in  his  letter  of  November  18th,  of  the 
offense  for  which  it  was  sought  to  try  Moses  Thatcher,  *'it  is 
not  a  matter  for  the  general  public,  nor  for  the  presence  of 
witnesses.  You  yourself  are  the  principal  party  interested,  and 
if  you  can  take  the  necessary  steps — which  are  altogether  with- 
in your  own  power — there  need  not  be  the  least  difficulty  about 
having  the  fellowship  of  your  fellow  Apostles."  He  says  in  the 
same  connection,  "the  members  of  your  quorum  could  not  fel- 
lowship your  spirit  and  conduct."  "  It  is  not  your  standing  in 
the  Church  that  is  at  issue,  but  your  fellowship  with  the  breth- 
ren of  your  quorum."  Hence,  there  was  no  offense  charged 
that  concerned  the  public;  there  was  no  misdemeanor,  no  in- 
fraction of  the  moral  or  civil  law,  no  personal  wrong  against 
any  brother  or  sister;  it  was  not  anything  that  required  wit- 
nesses to  make  accusation  or  vindication. 

What  was  it  then  that  was  required  of  Moses  Thatcher? 
It  was  simply  submission  and  self-abnegation,  a  renunciation  of 
selfhood  to  the  control  of  his  quorum  and  those  in  higher  au- 
thority.    He  had  declined  to  endorse  the  Manifesto.     He  had 


34  THE  LATE  MANIFESTO  IN   POLITICS. 

formerly  endorsed  a  rule  that  prohibited  the  leading  officials 
from  participating  in  political  affairs  as  partisan  leaders.  He 
believed  that  restriction  was  proper  and  right  under  the  circum- 
stances. But  when  the  First  Presidency  concluded  to  rescind 
that  rule  and  "counselled"  that  some  should  go  out  and  speak 
and  organize  for  a  certain  party  while  others  should,  because 
they  favored  an  opposite  party,  hold  their  peace,  under  these 
eircumstanees  Moses  Thatcher  refused  to  be  controlled  by  a 
"counsel"  which  he  knew  to  be  morally  wrong  in  itself,  as  also 
in  conflict  with  pledges  which  the  chief  authorities  were  at  that 
time  making  to  the  people  of  Utah  and  the  United  States  in  order 
to  secure  statehood.  It  was  in  such  matters  and  under  such 
conditions  that  Moses  Thatcher  refused  to  be  made  a  subservient 
tool  in  the  hands  of  certain  of  his  quorum  and  ecclesiastical 
superiors  to  carry  out  a  nefarious  policy  of  religious  tyranny 
and  political  infamy. 

In  all  this,  according  to  President  Snow,  he  showed  a 
"rebellious  spirit."  For  such  conduct  he  is  called  "rebellious 
and  worldly  minded."  Hence,  what  he  was  now  required  to  do 
was  that  he  should  go  to  his  quorum  and  make  a  full  renuncia- 
tion of  his  rights  and  manhood  as  an  American  citizen.  He 
must  renounce  the  inspiration  of  the  Declaration  of  Indepen- 
dence; he  must  eschew  the  freedom  and  equality  that  constitute 
our  birthright  of  civil  liberty.  And  all  this  he  must  do,  not- 
withstanding the  solemn  pledges  of  the  Mormon  Church  and 
authorities  that  no  man's  civil  and  political  agency  should  be 
compromised  or  infringed  by  priestly  authority.  Not  only  this, 
he  must  also  fly  in  the  face  of  the  Constitution  of  the  Unit- 
ed States,  and  the  very  expressive  clause  which  he  himself 
caused  to  be  inserted  in  the  Constitution  of  the  State  of  Utah — 
a  clause  pronouncing  most  emphatically  and  unambiguously  in 
behalf  of  a  complete  separation  of  church  and  state,  as  follows: 

Section  4.  The  rights  of  conscience  shall  never  be  infringed.  The 
State  shall  make  no  law  respecting  an  establishment  of  religion  or  prohib- 
iting the  free  exercise  thereof;  no  religious  test  shall  be  required  as  a 
qualification  for  any  oflBce  of  public  trust  or  for  any  vote  at  any  election; 
nor  shall  any  person  be  incompetent  as  a  witness  or  juror  on  account  of 
religious  belief  or  the  absence  thereof.  There  shall  be  no  union  of  church 
and  state,  nor  shall  any  church  dominate  the  State  or  interfere  with  its 
functions.  No  public  money  or  property  shall  be  appropriated  for  or  ap- 
plied to  any  religious  worship,  exercise  or  instruction,  or  for  the  support 
of  any  ecclesiastical  establishment.  No  property  qualification  shall  be  re- 
quired of  any  person  to  vote,  or  hold  office,  except  as  provided  in  this  Con- 
stitution. 


MOSES   THATCHER  DEPOSED.  35 

Such  personal  renunciation  and  self  subjection  as  was  re- 
quired of  Moses  Thatcher  by  the  president  of  his  quorum,  is 
nothing  new  in  the  history  of  religious  societies.  Every  Jesuit 
is  under  such  vows;  almost  all  monastic  organizations  require 
such  a  surrender;  but  they  are  all  wrong;  they  are  all  inimical 
to  liberty,  and  the  genius  of  American  citizenship  is  utterly 
hostile  to  such  abnormal  religious  serfdom.  No  difference  what 
church  ordains  suoh  ordinances,  they  are  all  opposed  to  the  true 
spirit  of  progress,  and  the  Mormon  Chuch  has  already  solemnly 
pledged  itself  against  them. 

We  see  in  the  procedure  in  the  case  of  Moses  Thatcher 
the  course  to  be  pursued  in  all  similar  cases  of  discipline  for 
infraction  of  the  rule  of  "counsel"  promulgated  in  the  Mani- 
festo. If  an  officer  in  the  Mormon  Church  refuses  to  "counsel"" 
in  regard  to  a  nomination  to  a  political  office,  his  refusal  will  be 
a  "breach  of  fellowship"  with  his  quorum.  He  will  be  called 
upon  to  "humble  himself,"  to  renounce  his  "ambitions,"  to  ab- 
dicate his  political  independence.  If  he  "submits"  to  a  satis- 
factory degree,  that  submission  restores  his  fellowship  on  the 
basis  of  an  emasculated  manhood  and  civil  agency;  the  offense 
is  now  wiped  out;  he  is  henceforth  redeemed  from  the  infection 
of  Jeffersonian  Democracy;  he  is  absorbed  into  the  general 
control  of  "counsel"  which  says  to  one  man  "eome,"  and  he 
Cometh;  to  another  it  says  "go,"  and  he  goeth. 

Note  that  Moses  Thatcher  was  not  to  be  tried  for  his 
refusal  to  sign  the  "political  document,"  although,  as  one 
Apostle  says,  **he  should  have  been  called  to  account  within 
three  days  for  that  refusal,  except  for  his  poor  health  at  the 
time."  No,  there  would  be  no  public  trial  for  such  an  offense. 
The  idea  is  preposterous  !  The  political  sagacity  that  rules  in 
high  councils  is  not  going  to  give  away  its  cause  in  that  un- 
sophisticated manner,  for  it  would  raise  an  unsurmountable 
protest  in  the  minds  of  the  public. 

But  while  there  would  be  no  trial  for  the  specific  offense  of 
refusing  to  sign  the  "political  document,"  the  "submission" 
that  was  required  would  be  such  that  no  other  refusal  would 
ever  occur,  for  the  man's  spirit  would  be  subdued  and  moulded 
into  complete  ecclesiastical  serfdom. 

But  why  not  have  a  public  trial,  if  the  rule  is  right  in  the 
sight  of  God  and  man?  Why  not  that  which  is  spoken  in  the 
ear  proclaim  from  the  housetops?  Alas,  the  ways  of  "counsel" 
are  not  so!  If  the  rule  is  maintained  and  rigidly  enforced,  so 
far  as  the  Mormon  people  are  concerned,  there  is  an  end  of  Jef- 


36  THE   LATE  MANIFESTO   IN   POLITICS. 

fersonian  Democracy  in  Utali!  As  well  could  light  subsist  with 
darkness,  freedom  with  bondage,  as  that  "counsel"  should 
dictate  the  nominations  to  political  and  civil  offices,  and  not 
destroy  the  independence  and  individuality  that  are  the  life  and 
inspiration  of  Jeffersonian  Democracy  and  true  Republicanism. 


CHA.PTER  FOURTH, 


THE  QUESTIONS  INVOLVED. 

If  Moses  Thatcher  is  right  in  his  dissent,  as  it  is  confident- 
ly believed  these  pages  will  demonstrate,  the  future  history  of 
Utah  will  rank  him  as  one  of  her  greatest  benefactors.  For,  if  he 
is  right,  his  truth  will  prevail  over  error  in  the  minds  of  the 
people  and  be  the  means  of  escape  from  untold  tribulations. 
Throughout  nearly  half  a  century  Utah  has  been  a  storm  center 
within  the  American  Republic.  Beneath  all  the  ostensible 
causes  of  disturbance,  such  as  polygamy  was  made  to  be  in  the 
estimation  of  the  masses,  in  the  minds  of  the  real  statesmen  of 
the  country,  those  who  have  always  shaped  its  policy,  there  was 
one  menace — and  only  one  in  fact — the  tendency  of  some  of  the 
Mormon  leaders  to  lay  hands  on  the  functions  of  the  govern- 
ment and  subvert  the  state  by  a  theocratic  regime  that  strikes 
at  the  very  life  of  our  free  institutions. 

If  such  fears  are  confirmed  in  the  development  of  Utah 
politics — if  the  offices  of  the  State  shall  become  subordinated  to 
the  dictation  of  the  Church — if  the  will  of  the  people  and  the 
government  of  the  people  shall  become  tributary  to  the  will  and 
the  counsels  of  a  priestly  junta — if  the  Declaration  of  Indepen- 
dence shall  be  made  null  and  void  by  a  religious  priesthood,  slowly 
but  surely  a  cloud  will  gather  in  the  sky  of  American  patriot- 
ism, Utah's  representatives  in  Congress  will  be  discredited,  her 
population  will  be  divided  into  hostile  bands,  the  power  of  a 
hundred  millions  of  people  will  frown  in  defiance  of  an  attempt 
to  subvert  the  Republic,  and  in  the  end  there  will  be  violence 
and  loss  of  life;  the  whole  State  will  be  storm  swept;  every 
vestige  of  offense  will  be  swept  away. 

It  will  be  shown  in  this  discussion  that  the  rule  of  disci- 
pline in  question  is  in  substantial  conflict  with  pledges  and 


THE   QUESTIONS   INVOLVED.  37 

guarantees  made  by  the  Mormon  Church  and  the  leading 
officials  thereof  to  the  people  of  the  United  States — pledges 
made  in  behalf  of  full  and  complete  civil  liberty,  individual 
freedom  and  the  entire  separation  of  Church  and  State.  Indeed, 
the  following  pages  will  render  it  difficult  to  apprehend  how 
any  faithful  adherent  to  the  rule  can  at  once  with  a  clear  con- 
science and  ordinary  intelligence,  claim,  in  either  letter  or  spirit, 
to  fulfill  the  pledges  thus  made. 

The  gist  of  the  rule  sought  to  be  enforced  is  that  every 
member  of  the  Church,  and  particularly  every  "leading  official," 
shall  first  take  "counsel"  and  be  authorized  by  the  "proper  author- 
ities" in  the  Church  in  order  to  render  service  in  the  State.  No 
officer  or  member  can  even  "accept  a  nomination"  to  office  in  the 
State  without  first  seeking  "counsel"  in  the  way  of  authoriza- 
tion. In  short,  the  rule  means,  in  effect,  that  the  State  shall 
subsist  in  and  through  the  "counsel"  of  the  Church. 

It  is  not  unreasonable  for  the  people  to  demand  of  Moses 
Thatcher  that  he  show  good  and  sufficient  reasons  for  noncon- 
formity to  the  regulations  of  his  Church;  for  a  church  has  a 
recognized  right  to  prescribe  a  system  of  rules  and  regulations 
for  the  guidance  of  its  members,  and  no  communicant  has  it 
within  his  own  discretion  to  dissent  from  such  rules,  unless  he 
can  show  ample  grounds  for  non-compliance.  In  response  to 
this  demand  Moses  Thatcher  is  presented  in  the  following  pages 
as  resting  upon  the  most  important  and  substantial  reasons  for 
his  conduct  as  indicated  in  the  following  propositions: 

1.  The  rule  in  both  letter  and  spirit  conflicts  with  the  po- 
litical faith  of  Moses  Thatcher,  as  shown  from  his  conduct, 
sermons,  speeches  and  writings  during  previous  years.  Extracts 
will  be  presented  sufficient  to  show  that  he  could  not,  without 
self-stultification,  endorse  a  rule  whose  meaning  and  effect  he 
would,  from  his  long  experience  in  the  Church,  know  to  be 
inimical  to  liberty  and  destructive  of  the  State, 

2.  The  rule  will  be  shown  to  be  in  conflict  with  the  sacred 
pledges  of  the  Church  assembled  in  general  Conference,  and  of 
high  Church  officials,  these  pledges  having  been  made  in  order 
to  encourage  a  proposed  division  on  national  party  lines  and  to 
promote  statehood  for  Utah.  Some  of  these  pledges  will  be  pre- 
sented in  these  pages  to  show  that  the  Church  and  leading 
authorities  entered  into  solemn  covenant  with  the  people  of 
Utah  and  of  the  United  States.  And  inasmuch  as  the  people 
of  the  whole  country  accepted  such  pledges  and  ratified  them 
in  good  faith,  it  is  implied  that  the  covenants  thus  made   are 


38  THE  LATE  MANIFESTO  IN  POLITICS. 

expressed  in  terms  conveying  the  common  and  accepted  mean- 
ing that  the  people  naturally  and  necessarily  attach  to  words 
thus  used  to  beget  confidence  and  co-operation.  There  can  be 
no  toleration  of  a  double  sense  of  language,  no  allowance  shown 
to  mental  reservation.  All  must  be  clean  and  open  in  the  full 
sense  of  frankness  and  manly  integrity. 

3.  It  will  be  shown  that  the  rule  is  in  conflict  with  the 
independence  and  freedom  of  the  State,  and  that  it  tends  to 
absorb  the  State  into  the  Church  and  make  it  the  mere  function 
and  agent  of  a  priestly  junta.  The  rule  is  in  conflict  with  the 
Constitution  of  Utah,  the  Declaration  of  Independence  and  the 
genius  and  spirit  of  American  institutions. 

4.  The  questions  herein  discussed  are  eminently  adapted 
to  awaken  and  educate  the  minds  of  the  people  in  the  principles 
of  liberty  and  the  spirit  of  American  institutions.  These  are 
problems  of  sovereignty  and  statehood.  They  could  not  arise 
among  other  than  a  people  seeking  to  be  free  and  self-govern- 
ing, and  we  venture  to  say  thaij  this  discussion  will  deepen  and 
quicken  our  sense  of  their  sacredness  and  significance. 


CHAPTER  FIFTH. 


MOSES  THATCHER  ON  CHURCH  AND  STATE. 

In  discussing  the  political  pledges  made  by  the  Mormon 
Church  and  authorities,  it  is  important  to  begin  with  Moses 
Thatcher;  for  during  many  years  past  his  convictions  in  rela- 
tion to  church  and  state  have  been  :n  accord  with  those  of  the 
most  democratic  of  American  statesmen.  Throughout  active 
manhood  he  has  understood  and  cherished  the  inspirations  of 
lil  erty  and  equality  out  of  which  originate  government  by  and 
for  the  people. 

A  further  reason  for  giving  prominence  to  his  opinions  on 
church  and  state  is  that  at  the  beginning  of  the  "division  move- 
ment" his  attitude  was  a  subject  of  discussion,  and  his  unam- 
biguous utterances  in  behalf  of  American  principles  had  a  ten- 
dency to  quiet  and  reassure  those  who  had  fears  as  to  the  wis- 
dom of  promoting  statehood  for  Utah.  It  was  not  known  until 
long  afterwards  that  Moses  Thatcher  was  by  some  of  his  breth- 
ren considered  too  direct  in  his  utterances.  It  now  appears 
that  he  was  severely  reprimanded  for  the  democracy  of  his  poli- 
tics; and  at  the  Logan  high  council  meeting  he  was  the  subject 
of  bitter  censure  by  Joseph  F.  Smith  for  his  Ogden  Opera  House 
speech,  delivered  May  14,  1892.  Joseph  F.  Smith  and  John 
Henry  Smith  made  a  caustic  reply  soon  afterwards  but  it 
seems  that  Joseph  F.  Smith  was  not  satisfied;  he  desired  to  re- 
inforce his  arguments  with  ecclesiastical  torture;  and  it  is  due 
to  Mr.  Thatcher  to  say  that  the  unrelenting  vindictiveness  with 
which  he  has  been  pursued  is  due  to  the  ire  of  certain  priestly 
leaders  who  feel  chagrinned  because  of  his  refusal  to  be  a  party 
with  them  in  carrying  out  political  machinations  that  betray 
and  violate  the  plighted  faith  of  the  Mormon  Church  and 
authorities. 

And  Mr.  Joseph  F.  Smith  must  remember  that  the  utter- 
ances of  Moses  Thatcher  which  he  now  condemns  were  at  the 
time  greatly  instrumental  in  procuring  statehood  and  in  build- 
ing up  the  party  of  Jefferson  in  Utah.  Had  it  been  known  at 
the  time  that  Moses  Thatcher  was  an  offending  member  of  the 


40  THE   LATE   MANIFESTO  IN  POLITICS. 

Mormon  Church,  and  that  he  was  imperiling  his  official  stand- 
ing for  his  outspoken  Americanism,  there  would  have  been  no 
statehood  for  Utah  so  long  as  it  was  manifest  that  in  the  hearts 
of  certain  Mormon  leaders  there  existed  such  rancorous  hostili- 
ty to  the  principles  of  civil  liberty.  But  as  Mr.  Thatcher's 
opinions  were  scattered  broadcast  among  the  people,  inducing 
many  to  favor  statehood  who  would  not  otherwise  have  done  so; 
and  as  his  utterances  were  not  repudiated  by  any  public  action 
of  the  chief  Church  authorities,  but  left  rather  to  contribute  to 
the  formation  of  statehood  sentiment,  under  such  a  state  of  facts 
we  are  compelled  to  classify  his  declarations  among  those  that 
bind  the  Mormon  Church  to  a  complete  separation  of  Church 
and  State. 

A  very  telling  little  address  was  delivered  by  Moses  Thatch- 
er at  the  Salt  Lake  Theatre,  July  30,  1891,  and  was  briefly 
reported  by  the  Herald  as  follows: 

The  Democrats  held  a  rousing  meeting  at  the  Salt  Lake  Theatre  last 
evening. 

Hon.  Moses  Thatcher  was  there  as  a  listener.  While  the  meeting 
was  being  adjourned  the  vast  audience  demanded  that  he  speak. 

Mr.  Dyer  stepped  forward  to  say  that  the  meeting  was  at  an  pnd,  but 
cries  for  Moses  Thatcher  resounded  from  all  parts  of  the  house,  and 
Mr.  Thatcher  finally  stepped  to  the  front  and  said:  "For  reasons  which 
I  think  BuflBcient  I  have  taken  no  active  part  in  this  campaign — not 
because  I  was  not  in  sympathy  with  the  grand  old  Democratic  party, 
but  because  there  are  many  people  in  Utah  throughout  the  length  and 
breadth  of  the  land,  who  believe  the  Church  dominates  the  state  in  Utah. 
Because  of  the  ecclesiastical  position  which  I  occupy  I  desire  to  say  no 
word  in  this  campaign,  but  look  to  these  gentlemen  for  the  educating  of 
the  people.  A  great  hero  of  many  battles  who  had  shot  and  shell  tear  up 
the  ground  at  his  feet,  and  who  had  seen  the  blood  of  those  who  wore  the 
blue  and  the  gray  flow  in  streams,  said  to  Lee  when  the  latter  sur- 
rendered and  handed  him  his  sword,  'No,  general,  not  a  horse  or  a  mule. 
You  will  need  them  all  for  your  spring  plowing.'  It  is  a  glorious  thing  to 
be  magnanimous.  You  may  look  on  that  picture  and  then  turn  and  look 
on  this.    The  Mormon  people  are  sincere.     (Tremendous  applause.) 

"We  trust  the  Gentile  Democrats  and  Mormon  Democrats  alike,  be- 
cause they  cannot  go  back  on  their  promises  without  stultification.  Stul- 
tification is  dishonor,  and  to  us  dishonor  is  worse  than  death.  (Prolonged 
applause.)  I  am  opposed  to  a  union  of  church  and  state  and  always  have 
been.  (Applause.)  It  cannot  exist  under  the  American  system  of  govern- 
ment. (Applause.)  We  have  never  been  understood,  but  thank  God  we 
will  be." 

This  speech  means  that  as  General  Grant  was  magnanimous 
in  that  he  was  generous,  having  all  power  in  his  hands,  so  also 
the  Mormon  people  are  greatly  in  the  majority,  but  they  also 
are  magnanimous,  for  they  do  not  desire  to  rely  upon  numbers, 


MOSES  THATCHER   ON   CHURCH  AND   STATE.  41 

but  upon  principles.  They  do  not  believe  in  the  union  of  church 
and  state,  and  the  people  can  confide  in  their  faithfulness  to  the 
American  system  of  government. 

In  a  sermon  preached  at  Logan  in  April,  1892,  on  the 
"  Evils  Eesulting  from  the  Union  of  Church  and  State,"  Mr. 
Thatcher  gave  an  exhaustive  review  of  the  whole  subject  as 
shown  up  in  sacred  and  secular  history.  He  traced  the  sacred 
records  down  to  the  time  of  Christ,  when  he  commanded  that 
the  people  "render  unto  Caesar  the  things  that  are  Csesar's  and 
unto  God  the  things  that  are  God's."  He  took  up  the  union  of 
church  and  state  effected  in  European  countries  and  the  action 
of  the  people  who  fled  to  America  for  freedom. 

"Then  came  the  struggle  for  nationality,"  he  continued,, 
"that  finally  found  voice  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence  de- 
manding advanced  human  rights  as  outlined  in  the  Constitution,^ 
an  instrument  inspired  of  God.  Its  writers,  profiting  by  the  ex- 
perience of  the  past,  made  religious  liberty  its  chief  corner- 
stone, but  avoided  a  union  of  church  and  state.  TVithout  viola- 
tion of  that  sacred  charter  of  human  rights  Congress  can  pass  no 
law  respecting  the  establishment  of  religion  or  preventing  the 
free  exercise  thereof.  To  that  guarantee  ofthe  Constitution  we 
owe  our  existence  as  a  church." 

Probably  as  clear  and  concise  a  statement  as  will  be  found 
of  Mr.  Thatcher's  position  is  given  in  his  letter  to  the  Recon- 
vened Convention,  which  met  at  Salt  Lake,  October  22,  1895,. 
the  following  report  being  from  the  Salt  Lake  Herald: 

Logan,  Utah,  October  21,  1895. 

Hon.  O.  W.  Powers,  Chairman  Democratic  Territorial  Committee,  and 
Members  of  the  Re-Convened  Convention  : 

Gentlemen— Owing  to  the  unsatisfactory  condition  of  my  health, 
which  renders  it  impossible  for  me  to  be  with  you,  I  adopt  this  means  of 
conveying  to  your  honorable  body  a  statement  of  my  position  on  questions 
arising  from  the  very  serious  crisis  which,  without  volition  of  the  Demo- 
cratic party,  now  confronts  us;  and  in  the  proper  and  permanent  solution 
of  which,  as  I  view  it,  is  involved  the  honor,  peace,  prosperity  and  liberty 
of  Utah's  inhabitants.    (Applause.) 

As  heretofore,  when  treating  on  political  issues,  I  have  sought  to  be 
candid  and  straightforward  in  word  and  act,  and  the  conditions  now  con- 
fronting us,  as  well  as  my  honor  and  that  of  the  party  of  which  I  am  a 
member,  demand  that  I  should  continue  along  those  lines,  leaving  nothing 
of  a  doubtful  nature,  upon  which  to  found  an  argument  as  to  my  position* 
either  by  friends  or  by  political  opponents.    (Hearty  applause.) 

My  connection  with  the  matters  relating  to  the  present  grave  crisis 
would  appear  to  warrant  a  brief  statement  of  my  political  acts  since  the 
division  of  the  citizens  of  Utah  on  national  and  local  political  questions. 


42  THE   LATE    MANIFESTO   IN   POLITICS. 

At  the  outset,  I  was  strongly  impressed  with  the  idea  that  it  would  be 
better  for  the  ecclesiastical  oflScers  of  the  dominant  religious  society  in 
Utah,  as  well  as  in  the  interest  and  welfare  of  the  people,  for  prominent 
Church  officials,  including  the  members  of  the  First  Presidency,  the  Twelve 
Apostles  and  the  presidents  of  the  Quorum  of  Seventies,  not  to  involve 
themselves  in  active  partisan  politics,  believing  that  their  influence  should 
be  brought  to  bear  against  the  acrimonious  jealousies  likely  to  arise  in  a 
contest  over  questions  in  which  the  masses  of  the  people  were  not  then 
well  informed.  In  other  words,  that  these  high  ecclesiastical  authorities 
might  be  called  upon  to  pour  oil  on  the  politically  disturbed  waters  of  our 
fair  Territory,  a  task  which  I  then  and  now  believe  can  be  successfully  per- 
formed by  those  only  who  had  not  become  partisan  in  their  political  pre- 
ferences, and  I  believe  that  action  in  harmony  with  those  ideas  was,  about 
that  time,  taken,  but  was  shortly  thereafter,  as  I  remember,  ignored,  and 
that,  as  the  record,  I  think,  will  show,  not  by  members  of  the  Democratic 
party,  but  by  their  Republican  political  opponents. 

*  *  *  *  I  need  waste  none  of  the  time  of  this  reconvened  con- 
vention, in  an  argument  respecting  the  political  struggles  in  this  Territory 
during  the  past  three  years ;  nor  need  I  add  anything  on  the  question  of 
Church  influence  being  directly  or  indirectly  to  the  injury  of  one  party  and 
correspondingly  to  the  benefit  of  another,  because  that  question  has  been 
fully  discussed  during  the  period  to  which  I  allude. 

From  the  beginning,  in  nearly  all,  if  not  all,  of  my  political  addresses 
and  private  conversations  I  have  uniformly  sought  to  impress  upon  the 
minds  of  the  people  the  absolute  separation  of  church  and  state;  holding 
that  the  civil  obligations  of  the  citizen  should  in  no  degree  trammel  the 
exercise  of  a  man's  religious  obligations,  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  should 
the  exercise  of  his  religious  duties  interfere  with  his  obligations  to  the 
state  and  nation  whose  citizen  he  was;  maintaining  always  that  there 
were  no  presidents,  apostles  nor  other  church  officials,  as  such,  in  politics, 
and  that  the  freedom  of  the  citizen  in  these  matters  was  not  the  gift  of 
any  man  or  combinations  of  men,  but  a  bequest  from  the  fathers  who,  for 
the  benefit  of  themselves,  their  posterity  and  future  generations,  placed 
their  honor,  their  fortunes  and  their  lives  upon  the  altar  of  human  liberty. 

Many  Democrats,  if  not  the  majority  in  Utah,  have  been  made  to  feel 
that  they  were,  more  or  less,  under  a  religious  ban,  and  have  had  to  endure 
the  slurs,  if  not  the  direct  insults  tauntingly  and  sneeringly  put  upon 
them  by  men  who  had  espoused  other  political  doctrines,  and  many  have 
endured  insinuations  as  to  their  religious  integrity,  and  that  which  re- 
cently occured  in  the  priesthood  meeting  was  a  natural  sequence  of  causes 
leading  up  to  that  culmination. 

Personally,  J  have  no  complaint  to  make  because  of  what  then  and 
there  happened,  in  the  allusions  made  to  myself,  because,  as  I  view  it,  the 
individual  peace,  happiness,  integrity  and  reputation  of  one  man,  or  a  score 
of  men,  cuts  but  little  figure  in  matters  of  great  consequence  to  the  peo- 
ple of  Utah,  like  that  which  now  confronts  us,  but  I  may  be  permitted  to 
say  in  passing  that  nothing  in  the  acts  or  words  of  myself  would  warrant 
any  person  in  the  church  in  the  belief  that  I  would  not,  upon  proper  oc- 
casion, show,  as  I  have  always  done,  the  respect  due  my  ecclesiastical 
superiors,  and  that  without  in  the  least  degree  doing  a  wrong  or  in  any 
way  affecting  the  honor  of  the  political  party  to  which  I  belong. 


MOSES  THATCHER  ON  CHURCH  AND   STATE.  43 

I  have  always  believed,  and  now  believe,  that  there  is  abundance  of 
room  in  Utah  as  elsewhere  for  a  citizen  to  do  his  whole  duty  to  the  state 
without  in  the  least  degree  interfering  with  his  obligations  to  the  church 
of  which  he  may  be  a  member.  The  thought  had  never  occurred  to  me 
that  I  had,  at  any  time,  been  a  priestly  hireling.  Upon  the  least  intima- 
tion from  those  who  furnish  means  from  which  myself  and  others  have 
received  compensation  that  such  is  their  view  of  the  matter,  I  would  there- 
after neither  take  nor  expect  compensation  for  ecclesiastical  work,  but 
would  gladly  do  all  in  my  power,  trusting  the  future  for  the  rewards  to 
which  I  would  be  entitled. 

Recent  occurrences  intensify  the  demand,  as  expressed  in  our  State 
Constitution,  that  state  and  religious  matters  must  not  be  united,  and 
that,  while  it  is  the  duty  of  the  state  to  protect  the  church  in  the  enjoy- 
ment of  the  fullest  religious  freedom,  the  church  must  not  attempt  to 
dominate  in  civil  affairs,  and  on  this  point  I  am  with  my  party  and  do  not 
hesitate  to  believe  that  our  citizens  when  given  the  opportunity,  will  vin- 
dicate and  maintain  their  political  honor. 

Believing  as  I  do,  that  the  citizens  of  Utah  will  once  more  at  the 
polls  in  November  vindicate  their  integrity  and  preserve  their  honor,  as  I 
expect  to  do,  I  shall  vote  for  the  Constitution,  ready  and  willing,  in  and 
out  of  season,  to  do  my  part  in  maintaining  the  political  rights,  privileges 
and  blessings  of  free  institutions. 

And  now,  in  conclusion,  in  view  of  what  has  recently  occurred,  should 
the  members  of  the  convention  feel  that  it  would  be  in  the  interest  of  the 
Democratic  party  in  Utah  to  have  my  name  withdrawn  as  a  possible  can- 
didate for  the  United  State's  Senatorship,  you  may  regard  my  resignation 
as  herein  tendered,  but  should  you  still  think  that  I  should  remain  where 
your  action  at  Ogden  placed  me,  I  shall  be  with  you,  head,  heart  and  hand, 
to  the  end.    Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

Moses  Thatcher. 

The  foregoing  distinctions  and  declarations  concerning  the 
sphere  and  functions  of  church  and  state  as  being  separate  and 
independent  are  clear-cut  and  thoroughgoing.  Moreover,  he  made 
these  declarations  at  a  time  of  intense  interest  and  agitation  of 
the  questions  discussed.  At  any  other  time  his  words  would 
have  had  far  less  significance.  At  this  particular  time  a  great 
many  members  of  the  Mormon  Church  were  assembled  in  con- 
vention, and  the  policy  and  procedure  of  their  own  church  was 
the  topic  under  consideration. 

On  May  25,  1892,  Moses  Thatcher  published  in  the  Salt 
Lake  Herald  a  letter  containing  fundamental  and  discriminating 
thoughts  on  the  question  of  church  and  state.  The  article  was 
called  out  as  a  reply  to  a  letter  published  in  the  Ogden  Stand- 
ard by  Joseph  F.  Smith  and  John  Henry  Smith,  who  signed 
their  names  as  "  Republicans  and  descendents  of  Whigs."  Their 
publshed  letter  was  a  quiver  full  of  arrows,  each  one  pointed 
and  sharpened  to  make  the  keenest  rejoinder  possible  to  allega- 
tions made  by  Mr.  Thatcher  in  a  political  speech  at  a  Demo- 


44  THE   LATE  MANIFESTO   IN   POLITICS. 

cratic  convention  held  at  Ogden  a  short  time  previous.  The 
personalties  of  the  two  letters  are  not  of  importance  in  this  con- 
nection; and  we  present  those  features  of  Mr.  Thatcher's  letter 
that  develop  the  respective  spheres  and  functions  of  church 
and  state: 

I  simply  maintained  that  Jesus  contended  for  the  exercise  of  man's 
individuality  and  free  agency;  while  his  imperious  brother,  Lucifer,  sought 
by  a  plan  of  force  exactly  the  opposite.  *  h;  *  j  recognize  wisdom  in 
the  idea  that  "political  addresses  ought  to  deal  in  political  matters  solely 
and  ought  to  leave  theological  matters  alone,"  even  though  the  letter  itself 
appears  in  plain  contradiction  of  that  suggestion.  In  parity  the  rule  can,  I 
think,  be  reversed  with  profit  to  many:  i.  e.  "That  theological  discourses 
ought  to  deal  in  theological  matters  solely  and  ought  to  leave  political 
matters  alone."  Thus,  with  double  purpose  would  be  accomplished  that 
which  should  be  the  great  design  of  all  religious  and  political  parties, 
namely,  the  erection  of  an  impassable  barrier  over  which  state  influence, 
harmful  to  the  constitutional  guarantees  of  the  church,  could  not  pass^ 
and  over  which  church  influence  hurtful  to  the  state  could  never  go.  And 
this,  it  seems  to  me,  if  not  the  greatest  question  involved  in  Utah  today,  is 
at  least  one  of  vast  proportions,  and  one  that  none  of  us  can  afford  to 
tamper  with. 

The  conditions  as  now  developed  would  seem  to  indicate  the  present 
as  a  suitable  time  in  which  to  publicly  define  my  position  upon  this  most 
grave  subject.  To  my  mind  it  is  a  subject  of  vast  moment  to  the  people 
of  Utah,  and  one  fraught  with  the  peace,  prosperity,  progress  and  happi- 
ness of  ourselves  and  our  children  on  the  one  hand,  or  of  degradation, 
misery  and  bondage  to  us  and  \o  them,  on  the  other.  I  am,  therefore,  con- 
strained to  approach  it  with  a  sense  of  its  profound  gravity  and  far-reach- 
ing consequence,  rather  than  with  feelings  of  personal  resentment,  which^ 
if  gratified,  could  only  be  so  gratified  in  the  interest  of  personal  pride. 

In  the  conditions  surrounding  us  there  are  political  issues  arising 
that  demand  solution;  and  as  they  cannot  be  put  aside,  it  would  seem  to 
be  the  part  of  wisdom  to  meet  them  manfully  and  courageously,  affording 
such  solution  as  the  public  weal,  and  not  personal  animosities  should  inspire, 
for  after  all,  personality  in  questions  of  this  nature,  should  find  rest  in  the 
sea  of  public  good  as  drops  of  rain  find  repose  on  the  bosom  of  the  ocean. 
For  the  wealth  of  empires  I  would  not  intentionally  become  a  stumbling 
block  or  rock  of  offense  to  my  friends,  and  if  I  have  offended,  it  certainly 
was  not  premeditated.  If  errors  by  me  have  been  committed  they  were  of 
the  head;  the  heart  has  certainly  not  held  any  malice  aforethought. 

As  to  the  necessity  of  an  absolute  separation  of  church  and  state  in 
this  country,  my  position  has  long  since  been  clearly  defined,  for  I  have 
urged  earnestly  and  persistently,  in  public  and  private,  that  they  should 
be  entirely  separate  until  He  comes  whose  rig-ht  it  is  to  unite  and  rule  over 
the  one  as  king  of  kings  and  govern  the  other  as  lord  of  lords.  These 
views  are  the  outgrowth  of  years  of  thought,  and,  I  may  be  excused  if  I  say, 
of  most  earnest  prayer  over  a  subject  fraught  with  matters  of  deepest 
import  to  the  majority  of  the  people  of  this  vast  intermountain  region.* 
*  *  *  *  As  fellow  citizens,  we  meet  upon  a  common  jjolitical  level  each  be- 
ing the  peer  of  the  other,  while  every  other  citizen,  irrespective  of  class 


MOSES  THATCHER  ON  CHURCH  AND   STATE.  45 

color  or  previous  coDdition  of  servitude,  whether  poor  or  rich,  famous  or 
obscure,  is  the  peer  of  either  of  us. 

Resting  upon  this  broad,  humane  and  just  platform,  all  the  people  in 
whom  we  have  confided,  for  whom  we  have  fraternal  affection  and  upon 
whom  we  have  builded  high  hopes  of  liberty  and  love,  will  come  to  know 
as  many  now  know,  how  to  distinguish  between  the  words  and  works  of  a 
citizen  and  those  of  the  church  official,  though  the  citizen  and  church 
official  may  be  but  one  personality. 

During  the  transition,  a  few  individuals  may  drink  often  from  the  cup 
of  sorrow  down  to  the  bitter  dregs,  being  lashed  by  the  whipcords  of  party 
prejudice  until  the  fruits  of  honest  toil  and  the  flowers  of  honest  repute 
may  fade  away  like  snow  before  the  July  sun;  but  the  boon  once  gained 
and  discriminative  judgment  once  founded  on  the  rock  of  political  and 
divine  truth,  the  Church  will  surely  be  safe  and  may  demand  without  fear 
that  toleration  and  protection  from  the  government  which  is  guaranteed 
by  the  Constitution  of  our  country.  Such  a  consummation  gained  in  be- 
half of  a  persecuted  and  oppressed,  but  honest,  upright  people  would  be 
cause  worthy  of  any  sacrafice. 

To  my  mind  it  affords  a  theme  worthy  the  best  thought  and  effort  of 
statesman,  poet  and  prophet.  As  religionists,  let  us  still  hold  fast  to  the 
supreme  declaration,  "that  Congress  shall  enact  no  law  respecting  the  es- 
tablishment of  religion  nor  prohibiting  the  free  exercise  thereof."  As 
citizens  let  us  see  to  it  that  no  word  nor  act  of  ours  shall  even  by  implica- 
tion, taint  the  Church  with  the  unjust  and  dangerous  charge  of  its 
interference  in  the  affairs  of  civil  government. 

As  to  myself  the  constant  recognition  of  the  civil  rights  of  others, 
irrespective  of  party,  seems  important.  And  I  desire  in  the  discussion  of 
political  matters,  and  in  every  other  way,  to  keep  in  mind  the  great  demo- 
cratic fact  that  whatever  distinctions,  birth,  ancestry,  posterity,  name, 
wealth  or  education  may  have  wrought  in  other  directions,  yet  in  political 
affairs  and  in  the  exercise  of  the  sacred  rights  of  franchise  my  poorest  and 
most  humble  brother  having  the  rights  of  citizenship  is  not  only  my  equal, 
but  under  present  conditions  many  of  them  are  my  superiors.  I  shall 
never  ask  to  become  more  than  their  equal.  *  *  *  *  If  I  believed  politically 
and  felt  politically  as  do  my  Republican  friends,  Joseph  F.  and  John 
Henry,  I  should  no  doubt  write  as  they  have  written;  but  as  I  do  not  po- 
litically so  believe  and  feel  I  refrain  from  imitating  their  style.  I  fully 
recognize,  however,  their  right  to  criticise  anything  that  I  may  politically 
say  or  do;  but  I  do  not  accord  them  a  higher  right  in  that  respect  than 
that  accorded  to  the  humblest  Republican  in  the  rank  and  file  of  the  party. 
*  *  *  *  Religiously,  I  have  a  yearning,  earnest,  prayerful  desire  to  be  one 
with  my  brethren  and  in  an  humble  way,  always  asking  God  for  help,  I  shall 
try  to  do  my  part.  But  when  it  comes  to  matters  political,  especially  in 
reference  to  the  fundamental  principles  dividing  Democracy  and  Republi- 
canism, I  must  still  remain  on  the  side  that  trusts  the  people,  opposes 
protection,  bounty  legislation,  and  force  bills,  so  long  as  I  believe  them 
oppressive  and  harmful  to  the  masses.  But  I  am  willing  that  others  should 
entertain  and  maintain  opposite  views. 

Respectfully, 

LiOGAN,  May  25, 1892.  Moses  Thatcher. 


CHAPTER  SIXTH. 


PLEDGES  OF  THE  MOEMON  CHUKCH. 

One  of  the  strongest  and  most  notable  features  of  Moses 
Thatcher's  position  is  that  he  holds  the  very  ground  concerning 
church  and  state  that  has  already  been  covered  by  repeated 
pledges  of  the  First  Presidency,  the  leading  officials  and  the 
whole  body  of  the  Mormon  Church.  In  order  to  clear  the  way 
for  statehood,  they  pledged  honor  and  manhood  to  the  people 
of  Utah  and  the  United  States  that  church  and  state  should  be 
kept  separate;  and  that  by  no  exercise  of  priestly  authority 
should  the  sphere  of  the  civil  government  be  infringed  upon. 

Hence  Moses  Thatcher's  position  is  confessedly  impregnable, 
and  the  authors  of  the  Manifesto  are  put  upon  their  defense  to 
show  that  their  rules  and  regulations  do  not  violate  the  pledges 
heretofore  given.  As  the  terms  in  which  such  pledges  were  made 
are  of  great  importance  in  this  connection,  we  present  several  of 
them,  beginning  with  the  memorable  interview  of  Presidents 
Wilford  Woodruff  and  George  Q.  Cannon,  published  in  the 
Salt  Lake  Times,  June  23,  1891,  which  is  as  follows,  in  part: 

TIMES  INTERVIEW. 

"  It  is  asserted  that  the  Peoples  Party  was  dissolved  by  direction  of 
the  Church.    Is  there  any  foundation  for  that  charge?" 

"The  People's  Party  was  dissolved,  as  we  understand,  by  the  action 
of  its  leading  members.  They  have  stated  to  us  their  convictions  that  the 
time  had  come  for  a  division  on  national  party  lines.  There  has  been  a 
growing  feeling  in  this  direction  for  a  long  time,  and  the  dissolution  of  the 
People's  Party  is  the  result  of  that  sentiment,  and  not  the  fiat  or  instruc- 
tion of  the  Church.  The  first  intimation  that  we  had  of  dividing  on  party 
lines  came  to  us  from  Ogden.  There  is,  therefore,  no  foundation  for  the 
charge  that  the  Church  brought  about  the  dissolution  of  the  People's 
Party.    The  Church  does  not  claim  any  such  right." 

"The  Times  has  held  that  the  appearance  of  Church  management 
of  the  People's  Party  during  recent  times  resulted  purely  from  the  fact 
that  the  party  was  composed  almost  entirely  of  members  of  the  Church, 
with  prominent  churchmen  taking  part  in  the  affairs,  and  that  there  has 
not  been  church  rule  as  charged.    Is  this  view  correct?'' 

"  The  Times  has  correctly  stated  the  facts  connected  with  the  appear- 
ance of  Church  management  of  the  People's  Party.  That  party  having 
been  composed  principally  of  members  of  the  Church,  and  self-defense 


PLEDGES   OF  THE   MORMON  CHURCH.  47 

haviDg  compelled  them  to  consult  together  and  to  decide  concerning  the 
best  Bteps  to  be  taken  to  preserve  their  rights,  some  color  has  been  given 
to  the  charge  that  it  was  a  Church  party.  But  this  has  not  been  done  in 
a  Church  capacity.  Men  have  had  influence  in  that  party  and  been  lis- 
tened to  according  to  their  experience,  and  not  because  of  their  ofl&cial 
position  in  the  Church." 

"That  being  true,  are  we  to  understand  that  the  Church  will  not  as- 
sert any  right  to  control  the  political  action  of  its  members  in  the  future?" 
"  This  is  what  we  wish  to  convey  and  have  you  understand.     As  offi- 
cers of  the  Church  we  disclaim  the  right  to  control  the  political  action  of 
the  members  of  our  body." 

'•  Will  there  be  any  reason  why  members  of  the  Church  should  come 
together  and  vote  solidly,  if  political  conditions  here  are  similar  to  those 
which  prevail  elsewhere?" 

"  We  cannot  perceive  any  reason  why  they  should  do  this  in  the  fu- 
ture, if,  as  you  say,  political  conditions  should  exist  here  as  they  prevail 
elsewhere." 

"  Do  you  understand  that  it  is  the  wish  of  the  Mormon  Church  to 
maintain  a  separation  of  church  and  state  with  respect  to  all  political 
questions?" 

"  However  much  appearances  may  have  indicated  that  we  have  favored 
the  union  of  church  and  state,  and  notwithstanding  the  many  assertions 
which  have  been  made  of  this  nature,  there  is  no  real  disposition  among 
the  people  of  our  Church  to  unite  church  and  state;  in  fact,  we  believe 
there  should  be  a  separation  between  the  two.  But  in  past  times  the  situ- 
ation in  this  Territory  was  such  that  officers  of  the  Church  were  frequent- 
ly elected  to  civil  office.  If  the  people  availed  themselves  of  the  best 
talent  of  the  community,  they  were  under  the  necessity  very  frequently  of 
selecting  officers  of  the  Church  to  fill  these  positions.  You  must  under- 
stand that  nearly  every  reputable  male  member  of  the  Mormon  Church 
holds  office  in  the  Church.  Of  course,  where  the  people,  as  was  the  case 
in  many  localities,  were  all  Mormons,  if  they  elected  any  of  their  own 
members  they  had  to  choose  men  who  held  positions  in  the  Church.  Men 
were  selected  for  bishops  because  of  their  superior  ability  to  care  for  and 
manage  the  affairs  of  their  wards.  They  were  the  practical  and  experi- 
enced men  of  the  several  communities,  and  in  the  estimation  of  the  people 
were  suitable  for  legislators,  etc.  Their  election  to  civil  office  led  to  the 
idea  that  there  was  a  union  of  church  and  state." 

"Do  you  believe  that  it  is  the  wish  of  the  Mormon  people  to  unite 
with  the  great  national  parties  and  to  conduct  politics  in  this  Territory  as 
they  are  conducted  in  all  other  states?" 

"That  is  the  impression  we  have  received  from  conversation  with  the 
men  among  us  who  take  the  greatest  interest  in  political  matters." 

"Is  there  any  reason  why  the  members  of  the  Church  should  not  act 
freely  with  the  national  parties  at  all  times?" 

"We  know  of  no  reason  why  they  should  not." 

"Is  there  anything  to  be  gained  for  the  Church  by  securing  political 
control  in  Utah  with  or  without  statehood?" 

"We  see  nothing  to  be  gained  for  the  Church  in  this  way." 
"Is  it  not  true  that  the  members  and  leaders  of  the  Church  desire  to 
place  it  in  a  position  in  the  community  like  that  occupied  by  other  church 
societies?" 


48  THE   LATE  MANIFESTO  IN   POLITICS. 

"The  only  protection  the  Church  desires  is  that  which  it  should  ob- 
tain under  general  laws  which  secure  the  rights  of  all  denominations.  It 
would  be  most  unwise  for  the  Mormon  people  to  endeavor  to  secure  any 
advantage  not  shared  in  by  all  other  religious  people.  All  that  we  ask  is 
to  have  equal  rights  before  the  law." 

"Is  it  your  understanding  that  the  Mormon  people  differ  as  to  the 
Republican  and  Democratic  parties,  and  that  they  will  act  in  accordance 
with  their  convictions  in  uniting  with  those  parties?" 

"That  is  our  understanding." 

"Is  it  your  wish  that  the  Republican  and  Democratic  parties  should 
organize  and  present  their  principles  to  the  Mormon  people,  and  that  they 
should  unite  with  them  according  to  their  honest  convictions?" 

"Personally  we  have  felt  that  the  time  would  come  when  the  two  great 
parties  would  be  organized  in  this  Territory,  and  we  have  felt  that  if  an 
attempt  of  this  kind  should  be  made,  each  should  have  the  fullest  oppor- 
tunity to  lay  its  principles  before  the  people  so  that  they  might  have  a 
clear  understanding  of  the  issues  and  be  able  to  decide  in  the  light  of  facts 
presented  to  them,  to  which  of  the  parties  they  would  belong." 

"That  being  true,  could  anything  be  gained  by  bad  faith,  even  if  it 
should  be  contemplated  by  any  of  the  former  members  of  the  People's 
Party?" 

"Certainly  not." 

"The  opponents  of  party  division  on  national  lines  declare  that  they 
want  evidence  of  the  sincerity  of  the  Mormon  people.  The  Times  would 
ask  you  to  state  whether  the  declarations  of  sincerity  on  the  part  of  those 
leaders  who  have  been  before  the  public  reflect  your  views  and  meet  with 
your  approval?" 

"Those  declarations  express  our  views  and  have  our  entire  approval. 
What  greater  evidences  can  be  asked  than  those  which  have  already  been 
furnished?  The  statement  has  been  repeatedly  made  that  the  great  objec- 
tion to  us  was  our  belief  in  and  practice  of  patriarchal  marriage.  In  entire 
good  faith  the  manifesto  was  written,  siorned  by  the  leading  men,  and 
adopted  by  one  of  the  largest  Conferences  of  the  Church  ever  held — a  Con- 
ference composed  of  about  15,000  people.  It  has  been  asserted  in  addition, 
that  the  people  were  governed  by  the  Priesthood  in  political  matters.  This 
is  now  disproved  by  the  dissolution  of  the  People's  Party  and  the  union  of 
its  members  with  the  two  national  parties.  What  could  possibly  be  gained 
by  the  action  of  the  people  if  they  were  not  sincere?  If  the  elements  of 
sincerity  are  wanting,  such  a  movement  would  result  in  entire  demoral- 
ization." 

EEMAKKS  ON  FOEEGOING  INTEKVIEW. 

In  this  interview  it  is  seen  that  the  chief  authorities  dis- 
claim all  right  to  "dictate"  to  members  concerning  their  politi- 
cal faith  and  action.  They  declare  in  behalf  of  an  entire 
"  separation  of  Church  and  State;"  and  many  other  expressions 
are  used  with  reference  to  popular  and  current  opinions  on  the 
subject;  and  by  a  great  variety  of  language  the  First  Presidency 
endeavor  to  show  that  their  views  and  purposes  are  in  harmony 
with  the  wishes  and  demands  of  the  world  at  large. 


PLEDGES   OF  THE   MORMON  CHURCH.  49 

The  third  question  is  of  special  significance:  "Are  we  to 
understand  that  the  Church  will  not  assert  any  right  to  control 
the  political  action  of  its  member  in  the  future?" 

The  answer  is:  "  This  is  what  we  wish  to  convey  and  have 
you  understand.  As  officers  of  the  Church  we  disclaim  the 
right  to  control  the  political  action  of  the  members  of  our  body." 
Surely  if  the  single  pledge  herein  set  out  were  kept  in  good 
faith  and  in  the  full  meaning  of  words  there  would  be  no  cause 
of  complaint. 

These  pledges  were  made  at  the  time  of  the  division  on 
party  lines  and  in  order  to  promote  that  movement.  The  thing 
of  most  importance  to  say  about  them  is  that  they  must  be 
made  to  the  people  in  the  current  sense  and  meaning  of  the 
words.  There  must  be  no  double  sense,  or  "mental  reserva- 
tion." The  so-called  "Gardo  House  meeting,"  as  reported  in 
the  papers  in  connection  with  the  proceedings  of  the  Logan 
high  council,  was  held  about  the  time  of  the  interview,  probably 
later,  we  have  not  inquired  into  the  matter  of  date  as  yet;  but 
whenever  held,  its  purpose  and  effect  were  in  direct  violation,  not 
only  of  the  pledges  above  given,  but  of  all  the  others  that  were 
at  various  times  and  in  divers  forms  promulgated.  The  matter 
will  be  presented  elsewhere  in  these  pages;  but  here  it  is  neces- 
sary to  make  the  point  that  all  such  political  schemes  are 
instances  of  bad  faith  in  keeping  pledges  that  were  solemnly 
received  and  ratified  by  the  people. 

In  the  interview  above  given  the  Mormon  Church  speaks 
in  its  highest  official  capacity.  They  say  in  effect  that  they  will 
not  determine  by  counsel  or  any  other  priestly  influence  the 
status  or  policy  of  parties.  They  must  not,  in  any  ecclesiastical 
capacity,  entertain  and  promote  any  policy  or  project  of  a  polit- 
ical character.  They  disclaim  all  right  to  exercise  political  in- 
fluence by  means  of  ecclesiastical  authority  or  inducement.  The 
separation  of  church  and  state  must  be  in  the  American  sense. 
They  must  be  really  independent  of  each  other.  One  must  not 
live  as  a  parasite  upon  the  other;  each  has  its  own  origin  and 
sphere,  each  has  its  work  to  do,  its  cause  for  existence,  and  its 
end  to  achieve. 

The  Deseret  News,  June  24,  1891,  in  commenting  on  the 
*^ Times  Interview"  given  above  says: 

We  believe  their  unreserved  and  straigHtforward  statements  will 
have  the  effect  of  satisfying  persons  who  are  undecided  as  to  the  political 
attitude  of  the  leaders  of  the  Mormon  Church.  Although  there  has  not 
been  the  slightest  evidence  that  they  either  controlled  or  claimed  the  right 


50  THE   LATE  MANIFESTO   IN   POLITICS. 

to  control  the  people  of  Utah  in  the  exercise  of  the  voting  power,  yet  the 
charge  that  they  did  so  has  been  reiterated  so  much  that  it  has  been 
taken  by  many  as  an  undisputed  fact. 

At  all  events,  whether  the  people  had  been  subject  to 
priestly  ''counsel"  in  political  matters,  or  whether  they  had  not, 
the  ^' Times  interview"  shows  that  the  First  Presidency  intended 
to  convey  to  the  people  the  impression  that  they  should  be 
politically  free;  and  the  Deseret  News  endeavors  to  fortify  that 
impression  and  to  substantiate  the  validity  of  the  promises  and 
pledges  thus  made. 

THE  HOME  KULE  MEMOKIAL. 

In  January,  1892,  the  legislative  Assembly  of  the  Territory 
of  Utah,  composed  of  Mormons  and  Gentiles,  addressed  a 
memorial  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  containing  these 
words : 

In  the  midst  of  wonderful  material  progress  her  (Utah's)  people  have 
recently  turned  their  attention  to  the  study  of  the  questions  of  government 
and  legitimate  politics,  and  are  espousing  the  cause  of  one  or  the  other  of 
the  national  parties. 

These  new  conditions  have  come  naturally,  honestly,  and  for  the 
future  are  absolutely  secure.  A  patriotic  people  are  pledged  to  their  pres- 
ervation. Retrogression,  involving  as  it  would  dishonor  and  dire  misfor- 
tune, is  impossible. 

Utah,  in  the  feelings  of  her  people,  has  been  lifted  from  her  humilia- 
tion and  disgrace .  Today  she  is  imbued  with  the  hope  and  determination  to 
be  free — free  in  the  full  sense  of  American  constitutional  freedom;  which 
means  something  more  than  liberty  permitted;  which  consists  in  civil  and 
political  rights  absolutely  guaranteed,  assured  and  guarded  in  one's  liber- 
ties as  a  man  and  a  citizen — his  right  to  vote,  his  right  to  hold  oflBce,  his 
equality  with  all  others  who  are  his  fellow  citizens,  all  these  guarded  and 
protected,  and  not  held  at  the  mercy  and  discretion  of  one  man,  or  popular 
majority,  or  distant  body  unadvised  as  to  local  needs  or  interests. 

DEMOCEATIC   MEMOEIAL. 

At  the  national  convention  of  the  Democratic  party,  held 
at  Chicago  in  1892,  a  memorial  was  presented  by  the  Democrats 
of  Utah,  signed  by  Hon.  C.  C.  Eichards,  chairman  of  the  Demo- 
cratic Territorial  Committee,  and  Elias  Smith,  secretary,  in 
which,  among  other  things,  it  was  stated: 

"  That  the  sole  objections,  to-wit:  polygamy  and  Church  dictation  in 
politics,  against  the  Mormon  people  on  political  grounds,  have  been  entirely 
removed,  and  it  is  most  unwise  and  impolitic  to  deny  them  the  common 
rights  and  privileges  of  citizenship,  or  to  place  a  barrier  in  their  way  when 
they  are  evidently  determined  to  turn  their  backs  on  the  past  and  for  the 


PLEDGES  OF  THE   MORMON   CHURCH.  51 

future  labor  in  harmoDy  with  the  Nation  for  the  general  welfare,  in  strict 
submiFsion  to  the  laws,  acd  each  taking  an  independent  course  in  refer- 
ence to  party." 

THE  CONFERENCE  RESOLUTION.   • 

At  the  general  Conference  of  the  Mormon  Church,  held  at 
Salt  Lake  City  in  October,  1891,  the  following  resolution  was 
adopted  after  extended  diseussion  of  the  questions  involved: 

"  Whereas,  The  Utah  Commission,  with  one  exception,  in  their  report 
to  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  for  1891,  have  made  many  untruthful 
statements  concerning  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter-day  Saints, 
and  the  attitude  of  its  members  in  relation  to  political  affairs;  and, 

"Whereas,  Said  report  is  an  official  document  and  is  likely  to  pre- 
judice the  people  of  the  Nation  against  our  Church  and  its  members,  and 
it  is  therefore  unwise  to  allow  its  erroneous  statements  to  pass  unnoticed. 
Now,  therefore,  be  it 

'^Resolved,  By  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter-day  Saints  in 
general  Conference  assembled,  that  we  deny  most  emphatically  the  asser- 
tion of  the  Commission  that  the  Church  dominates  its  members  in  politi- 
cal matters,  and  that  the  Church  and  State  are  united.  Whatever  appear 
ance  there  may  have  been  in  times  past  of  a  union  of  Church  and  State, 
because  men  holding  ecclesiastical  authority  were  elected  to  civil  office  by 
popular  vote,  there  is  now  no  foundation  or  excuse  for  the  statement  that 
Church  and  State  are  united  in  political  matters;  that  no  cbercion  or  in- 
fluence whatever  of  an  ecclesiastical  nature  has  been  exercised  over  us  by 
our  Church  leaders  in  reference  to  which  political  party  we  shall  join,  and 
that  we  have  been  and  are  perfectly  free  to  unite  with  any  or  no  political 
party,  as  we  may  individually  elect;  that  the  People's  Party  has  been 
entirely  dissolved  and  that  our  fealty  henceforth  will  be  to  such  political 
party  as  seems  best  suited  to  the  purposes  of  republican  government." 

WHO  IS  IN  THE  WRONG? 

The  foregoing  exhibits  are  public  pledges  made  by  the 
Church  as  a  whole  and  the  chief  authorities  as  representatives 
of  the  Church.  If  the  several  specifications  and  distinctions 
are  carefully  weighed  they  will  be  found  to  cover  all  the  points 
that  are  necessary  to  be  emphasized  in  a  discussion  of  the 
spheres  of  Church  and  State.  These  pledges  of  the  Church 
put  it  on  the  same  ground  as  that  occupied  by  Moses  Thatcher 
in  his  declarations  concerning  Church  and  State.  Are  the 
Church  authorities  true  to  their  covenants?  If  they  are,  why 
is  Moses  Thatcher  ostracized?  If  their  pledges  affirm  the  recti- 
tude of  the  position  held  by  him,  why  is  he  now  standing  in  the 
attitude  of  an  offender? 

What  makes  him  an  offender?  It  is  his  refusal  to  conform 
to  the  rule  of  the  Manifesto.     Surely  then  the  Manifesto  must 


-52  THE  LATE  MANIFESTO   IN   POLITICS. 

conflict  with  Moses  Thatcher's  declarations  as  to  Church  and 
State !  If  it  does,  it  must  also  contradict  the  pledges  made  by 
the  Church  and  the  authors  of  the  Manifesto!  This  is  why- 
Mr.  Thatcher  could  not  sign  the  Manifesto  without  stultification* 
Not  only  himself  but  the  Church  also  would  be  stultified  by  the 
Manifesto. 


CHAPTER  SEVENTH. 


PEIESTHOOD  "COUNSEL"  IN  POLITICS. 

Under  primitive  conditions  the  secular  ruler  is  also  the 
religious  authority,  not  only  king  but  prophet  and  priest.  As 
progress  is  made  toward  civilization  the  state  is  divorced  from 
the  church  with  a  resulting  increase  of  human  welfare. 

This  process  of  differentiation  is  recognized  by  Christ  him- 
self when  he  said :  "Render  unto  Csesar  the  things  that  are 
CsBsar's  and  unto  God  the  things  that  are  God's."  In  the  infi- 
nite mind  all  government  is  united;  and  if  there  ever  comes  a 
time  when  human  souls  will  consciously  enter  the  infinite  life, 
then  there  may  be  but  one  organization  for  religious  and  govern- 
mental purposes.  But  at  present  man  is  a  frail  mortal,  ever 
liable  to  temptation,  ever  subject  to  misapprehension,  always 
open  to  motives  of  ambition  and  self-aggrandisement,  never 
free  from  prejudice,  never  fully  emancipated  from  the  bonds  of 
selfishness,  never  wholly  illumined  with  the  light  and  love  ol 
God,  always  human,  always  finite  and  dependent. 

Hence  it  has  become  an  axiom  under  democratic  systems 
of  government  that  there  must  be  no  "union  of  church  and 
state."  The  First  Presidency  are  as  emphatic  in  making  this 
declaration  as  Thomas  Jefferson  was.  But  when  it  comes  to  the 
meaning  of  words  and  propositions,  when  it  comes  to  practices 
and  fulfillments,  their  policies  lead  to  a  subversion  of  the  state. 

DESERET  NEWS  QUESTIONS. 

In  order  to  show  how  the  rule  of  "counsel"  laid  down  in 
the  Manifesto  is  interpreted  by  the  chief  authorities  that  speak 
through  the  Deseret  News,  a  list  of  seven  questions  printed  in 


PRIESTHOOD   COUNSEL   IN   POLITICS.  58 

the  issue  of  November  21,  with  short  answers  to  each,  is  here- 
with presented : 

1.  Has  the  Church  through  its  rightly  constituted  authorities  de- 
clared that  Church  and  State  affairs  shall  be  separate,  or  has  it  not? 

Ans.  Yes,  it  has,  not  only  through  its  "Authorities,"  but 
through  the  body  of  the  Church  in  convention  assembled. 

2.  If  it  has,  how  can  this  declaration  take  effect  without  a  solemn 
agreement  between  the  ecclesiastical  officers  that  none  of  them  shall  enter 
a  political  race  without  first  seeking  the  counsel  of  his  brethren? 

Why  should  ecclesiastics  be  banding  and  bonding  them- 
selves together  concerning  political  offices?  Who  made  tjiem 
the  ministers  and  masters  of  political  positions?  This  would 
seem  appropriate  for  a  country  governed  by  the  papacy,  but 
here  in  Utah  we  have  not  yet  subjected  ourselves  to  the  rule  of 
a  pope.  It  is  supposed  that  we  have  a  free  republican  govern- 
ment. 

Who  controls  the  state  under  popular  government?  What 
are  the  people  for?  What  did  Abraham  Lincoln  mean  when  he 
spoke  of  "government  by  the  people,  of  the  people,  for  the 
people?"  Is  it  the  "brethren"  that  determine  the  matter  of 
civil  offices,  or  the  people?  Is  it  so  that  political  offices,  like 
ripened  apples,  are  dropping  into  the  laps  of  the  "brethren," 
whether  they  will  it  or  not?  Who  taught  these  ecclesiastics 
that  the  offices  were  going  begging  for  them  to  fill  them  ? 

So  it  seems  in  the  mind  of  the  priesthood  organ  that  the 
only  danger  to  the  state  is  that  church  officers  will  each  be 
greedy  to  fill  them  ?  In  former  times  when  the  controversy  be- 
tween church  and  state  arose,  the  state  sought  to  run  the  church; 
later  the  church  controlled  the  state  and  made  it  a  simple  func- 
tion of  the  church.  Now  the  Deseret  News  thinks  that  the  only 
thing  neeessary  to  keep  the  church  off  the  state  is  that  "all  the 
brethren"  should  agree  to  get  into  the  state  at  one  time.  They 
must  "all  agree"  in  one  act  of  trespass  on  the  state.  It  is  an 
offense  if  one  officer  does  it  independently;  but  it  is  all  right  if 
all  together  go  pell  mell  into  the  transgression. 

But  the  News  asks  a  sober  question: — "How  can  this  decla- 
ration (that  church  and  state  shall  be  separate)  take  effect  with- 
out a  solemn  agreement  between  the  ecclesiastical  officers,  etc." 
How  strange  it  is  that  such  a  question  should  seem  to  be  neces- 
sary! Does  the  church  infringe  on  the  state  because  some 
preacher  or  other  clerical  officer  seeks  employment  in  the  civil 
service?   No.    If  all  civil  officers  were  ecclesiastics,  there  migh 


54  THE  LATE   MANIFESTO  IN   POLITICS. 

still  be  no  union  of  church  and  state.  They  might  still  be 
clearly  independent. 

What  then  constitutes  infringement?  It  is  the  use  of  the 
religious  authority  of  the  church  to  impel  or  induce  men  to  act 
in  civil  affairs.  Does  the  News  know  of  anybody  going  up  to 
Idaho  recently  to  carry  "counsel"  to  the  "brethren"  up  there  in 
regard  to  their  political  action?  Does  the  News  know  of  any 
prominent  brother  Mormon  up  in  Idaho  who  now  complains 
that  he  was  defeated  by  the  "counsel"  carried  up  there  by  that 
same  visiting  brother?  Does  the  News  know  of  any  "counsel" 
that  was  carried  into  Wyoming  during  the  late  canvass?  Does 
the  News  know  of  any  so-called  visiting  statesman  who  came  to 
Salt  Lake  recently  prepared  with  some  of  Mark  Hanna's  logic 
to  procure  "counsel"  for  the  "brethren"  in  Idaho  and  Wyoming? 
Does  the  News  know  of  any  legislative  "steering  committee" 
whose  mission  it  was  to  instruct  "brethren"  how  to  vote  at  the 
recent  session. 

It  is  such  influences  as  the  foregoing  that  constitute  an 
infringement  on  the  state.  It  is  the  use  of  church  authority  to 
induce  actions  and  effect  results  in  political  and  civil  affairs.  It 
can  be  said  in  truth  that  it  is  not  the  desire  of  the  rank  and  file 
of  the  Mormon  Church,  the  great  and  honest  body  of  the  mem- 
bership, to  have  such  infamous  uses  made  of  their  sacred  beliefs 
and  confidences,  but  unfortunately  there  are  men  in  power  who 
control  others,  they  hypnotize  them  and  domineer  over  them, 
and  in  the  end  mould  them  to  their  nefarious  purposes. 

If  the  News  wishes  to  know  in  good  faith,  "how  this  decla- 
ration (against  union  of  church  and  state)  can  take  effect  with- 
out the  rule  requiring  "counsel"  in  order  to  run  for  office  in  the 
state,  let  it  reflect  that  no  other  church  has  found  it  necessary 
to  have  such  a  rule.  Even  those  churches  that  have  throughout 
the  progress  of  Christianity  warred  against  the  union  of  church 
and  state,  none  of  such  churches  has  ever  thought  of  a  rule  like 
that  which  is  now  proposed.  Why?  Because  the  rule  is  simply 
an  expedient  to  control  the  presentation  of  officers  to  the  state. 
It  enables  a  few  men,  or  perhaps  one  man,  to  say  who  shall  be 
elected.     It  proposes  to  authorize  certain  men  to  run  the  state. 

Hence  the  true  answer  to  the  question  is  that  it  is  wholly 
and  emphatically  a  usurpation  for  any  church  council  to  say 
one  word  or  record  a  line  concerning  which  one  of  their  number 
shall  take  or  seek  political  office.  If  they  want  to  say  that  none 
of  their  number  shall  enter  politics  or  any  other  secular  occupa- 
tion, it  is  their  privilege  to  do  so;  but  to  say  who  shall  go  and 


PRIESTHOOD   COUNSEL   IN  POLITICS.  55 

who  shall  come  is  to  present  men  to  the  state,  it  is  usurpation, 
a  violation  of  the  rights  of  the  people,  an  infringement  on  pop- 
ular liberty. 

3.  Is  it  possible  to  obtain  the  desired  result  without  strict  adher- 
ence to  some  uniform  rule  of  conduct,  and  if  so,  how? 

Why  surely  it  is  possible  to  obtain  the  proper  and  true 
result  without  such  a  rule;  but  whether  that  would  be  the 
"desired"  result  is  not  certain.  How?  Why,  let  the  church 
authorities  get  out  of  politics;  have  them  let  politics  severely 
alone;  let  the  people  run  that  department  for  themselves;  that 
is  what  the  chief  authorities  promised  to  do,  and  let  them  be 
faithful  to  their  pledgee.  If  the  authorities  let  the  political 
offices  alone,  the  people  will  soon  learn  to  know  whether  they 
need  any  clerical  functionaries  to  serve  in  a  civil  capacity.  How 
do  churches  manage  sueh  matters  in  other  settled  states?  Sure- 
ly, because  we  have  the  Mormon  Church  in  Utah,  the  people 
are  not  differently  constituted  here  from  what  they  are  in  other 
parts  of  the  country.     Let  the  people  and  their  politics  alone. 

4.  Is  not  the  recent  address  to  the  Saints  the  adoption  of  just  such 
a  rule  with  the  plain  and  evident  intention  of  preserving  inviolate  the  bor- 
der line  between  church  and  state? 

The  recent  address  to  the  Saints!  Preserving  the  border 
line  between  church  and  state!  The  address  uses  many  words 
and  phrases  that  seem  to  sanction  the  separation  of  church  and 
state.  In  that  address  the  lion  and  the  lamb  lie  down  together 
in  seeming  peace  and  harmony,  and  in  the  practical  working  of 
the  rule  the  lion  is  a  perfect  !ion,  and  the  lamb  is  a  perfect 
lamb;  and  very,  very  lovingly  they  lie  down  together — the  lamb 
inside  the  lion !  The  address  is  simply  a  contrivance  of  a  very 
shrewd  mind  to  get  the  lamb  inside  the  lion  with  the  utmost 
neatness  and  dispatch.  If  the  lamb  persists  in  not  getting  in- 
side, the  alternative  is  that  it  shall  be  defamed,  maltreated,  de- 
stroyed, as  in  the  case  of  Moses  Thatcher. 

5.  How  can  an  ecclesiastical  oflBcer  refusing  to  submit  to  such  a  rule 
escape  the  suspicion  that  he  is  the  one  who  intends  using  his  religious  in- 
fluence for  political  purposes? 

What  transparently  shallow  logic!  How  will  such  an  eccles- 
iastic  better  the  matter  by  being  commissioned  by  his  quorum 
and  superior  officers?  Will  he  not  be  doubly  charged  with  Church 
authority?  And  will  he  not  be  doubly  empowered  to  impose 
himself  on  his  brethren  as  a  divinely  appointed  candidate  for 
the  office?     Will  it  not  give  him  a  double  dose  of  Church  in- 


66  THE  LATE  MANIFESTO   IN   POLITICS. 

fluence?  Will  he  not  then  go  forth  as  the  only  simon  pure, 
regularly  authorized,  doubly  blessed,  especially  chosen  emissary 
of  the  Priesthood  ? 

If  there  is  evil  in  church  influence  in  politics,  as  every 
lover  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  must  hold  that  there 
is,  this  endorsement  by  "the  brethren"  under  the  rule  of  "coun- 
sel" enhances  in  every  way  the  possibilities  of  evil.  And  why 
does  the  News  suggest  that  the  man  who  refuses  to  submit  to 
such  a  rule  is  the  one  that  intends  using  his  religious  influence 
for  political  purposes?  Are  all  those  men  that  have  refused  to 
submit  to  the  rule  seeking  office?  If  they  were,  is  it  likely  that 
they  would  deem  it  an  advantage  to  resist  a  rule  that  they 
could,  if  they  were  designing  and  unscrupulous  men,  use  to  pro- 
mote their  own  interests?  If  they  resist  the  rule,  do  they  not 
thereby  incur  the  enmity  of  crafty  leaders  who  have  great  in- 
fluence in  the  Church?  If  they  were  sordid  office  seekers, 
would  they  not  work  the  Church  for  all  that  it  was  worth,  and 
go  to  the  people  clad  in  all  the  religious  influence  of  priesthood 
authority  ? 

No,  the  man  who  has  independence  enough  to  go  to  the 
people  without  any  such  brand  of  church  approval,  stands  in 
the  presence  of  all  honest  men  with  infinitely  less  of  the  taint 
of  "suspicion"  than  the  man  who  plots  with  his  ecclesiastical 
associates  to  capture  an  office  which  is  the  heritage  of  the 
people  in  their  secular  capacity. 

6.  What  is  it— bigotry,  mania,  hypocrisy  or  viiliany,  or  all  combined 
— that  prompts  an  attack  on  the  Church,  because  its  authorities  endeavor 
to  carry  out  solemn  pledges? 

What  is  it  that  prompts  such  malice  in  a  question  ?  What  is 
it  that  prompts  such  men  as  Moses  Thatcher  to  refuse  compli- 
ance to  the  rule  of  "counsel"  promulgated  by  the  Church?  Are 
such  epithets  as  "bigotry,  mania,  hypocrisy  or  viiliany"  applic- 
able to  Moses  Thatcher?  Are  such  qualities  of  mind  and  heart 
exhibited  in  his  correspondence  with  President  Snow?  Are 
his  friends,  relatives  and  associates  entitled  to  such  designa- 
tions? Does  the  News  as  the  "Church  organ,"  claim  to  be  the 
voice  of  "the  Son  of  God,"  in  resorting  to  such  vituperation? 

Why  does  the  News  beg  the  question  by  assuming  an 
"attack  on  the  Church?"  Does  not  that  look  like  the  most 
arrant  cowardice?  Don't  you  unjustly  assume  that  your  rule  is 
right?  By  setting  up  an  "attack  on  the  Church,"  don't  you 
seek  to  dodge  an  examination  into  the  righteousness  and  jus- 
tice of  the  rule  ?    Don't  you  thus  seek  to  hide  the  inquiry  as  to 


PEIESTHOOD   COUNSEL  IN  POLITICS.  57 

its  being  subversive  of  the  State?  Don't  you  seek  thus  to  raise 
such  a  dust  that  in  the  midst  of  it  you  may  obscure  the  point  at 
issue?  Why  not  try  to  honestly  show  that  the  rule  of  "counsel"  is 
not  in  conflict  with  the  doctrine  of  the  separation  of  church  and 
state? 

7.  Are  those  the  colors  of  the  banner  of  "liberty,"  round  which 
"Young  Utah"  are  invited  to  rally?  If  so,  keep  on  unfurling  it  to  the 
breeze,  as  has  been  done  in  the  papers  the  past  week.  "Young  Utah"  will 
then  see  where  the  standard  of  true  liberty  does  not  wave. 

There  was  a  mighty  "banner  of  liberty"  unfurled  when 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  was  promulgated.  Its  folds 
now  wave  in  every  land  where  the  heart  of  man  is  bold  enough 
and  true  enough  to  inaugurate  self-government.  That  Godgiv- 
en  ensign  has  been  unfurled  in  Utah;  its  lines  are  written  in 
our  Constitution;  its  lessons  are  nourished  in  the  hearts  of  our 
school  children ;  we  want  to  be  true  to  the  Heaven-born  emblem 
of  human  liberty ! 

There  is  not  a  thought,  not  an  emotion  of  soul  that  rises 
up  in  protest  against  the  "rule  of  counsel"  that  does  not  have 
its  inspiration  from  the  "banner  of  liberty"  that  God  unfurled 
in  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  God  knows  that  in  the 
hearts  of  the  men  that  are  moved  to  resist  this  "rule"  there  is 
no  thought  of  malice  or  unkindness  toward  the  Church.  But 
the  thought  is  forced  upon  them  that  certain  individuals  in  the 
Church  are  seeking  to  use  the  Church  and  its  influence  to  pro- 
mote their  own  selfish  schemes.  It  is  for  the  sake  of  these 
schemes  that  the  Church  is  about  to  be  ushered  into  a  career  in 
utter  conflict  with  the  sacred  pledges  of  the  past.  The  protest 
is  not  an  anti-church  protest.  It  is  the  voice  of  Liberty.  It  is 
the  voice  that  spoke  in  the  Declaration.  It  contains  all  politics 
because  it  contains  all  the  motives  of  self-government.  It  lies 
at  the  foundation  of  the  democracy  of  Thomas  Jefferson  and 
the  republicanism  of  Abraham  Lincoln.  It  is  the  sunlight  and 
air  of  every  true  patriot.  It  is  as  deep  as  the  human  soul,  as 
broad  as  human  life. 

TKIBUNE  QUESTIONS. 

Having  reproduced  the  queries  of  the  Deseret  News,  it  is 
fair  to  give  place  to  a  similar  series  of  questions  from  the  Tri~ 
hune  which  have  the  merit  of  answering  themselves  in  the 
intelligence  of  any  man  who  can  honestly  lay  claim  to  intel- 
ligence. 


58  THE   LATE   MANIFESTO   IN   POLITICS. 

The  News  says  it  opposes  Moses  Thatcher's  candidacy  for  the  sole 
reason  that  he  stands  upon  a  platform  "which,  fairly  interpreted,  means 
nothing  more  nor  less  than  war  against  a  religious  society." 

The  public  of  Utah  is  not  especialy  interested  either  in  Moses  Thatch- 
er or  the  News,  but  is  deeply  interested  in  knowing  what  the  Mormon 
Church  now  holds  as  a  "war  against  it."  So  we  beg  to  propound  to  the 
organ  of  the  Church  a  few  questions,  as  follows  : 

1.  Does  Moses  Thatcher  pretend  to  assail,  trench  upon  or  render  in- 
valid any  article  of  the  Mormon  faith? 

2.  Is  or  is  not  his  present  insistence  solely  that  as  an  American  citi- 
zen he  has  a  right  to  excercise  his  political  privileges,  without  regard  to 
his  religious  superiors? 

3.  Has  not  that  right  been  conceded  to  him  and  every  other  member 
of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter-Day  Saints  by  the  present  First 
Presidency  of  the  Church  ? 

4.  Was  it  not  the  assumption  of  the  right  of  the  First  Presidency  to 
dictate  the  action  of  the  members  of  the  Church  in  political  matters  that 
kept  Utah  in  a  turmoil  and  filled  with  apprehension  and  unrest  the  hearts 
of  men  here  for  twenty-five  years? 

5.  Was  it  not  the  voluntary  surrender  of  that  claim  by  the  First 
Presidency  that  secured  Statehood  for  Utah? 

6.  Has  the  course  of  the  News  during  the  past  six  days  been  the 
same  that  it  would  have  been  had  the  question  of  admitting  Utah  to  State- 
hood been  one  which  Congress  was  about  to  consider? 

7.  If  not,  has  good  faith  been  displayed  toward  the  United  States  and 
this  people  since  the  People's  party  disbanded? 

8.  If  the  News  as  the  organ  of  the  Church,  can  dictate  who  shall  not 
be  elected  to  oflBce,  cannot  the  same  power  dictate  who  shall  be? 

9.  If  it  can,  what  political  freedom  has  Utah  any  more  than  when  the 
nominations  were  announced  from  the  Tabernacle  altars  and  the  people 
were  instructed  to  vote  for  candidates  so  named? 

The  people  of  Utah  are  exceedingly  anxious  to  read  the  answers  to 
the  foregoing  interrogatories. 

THE  DESERET  NEWS'  FIGHT  FOR  THE 
SENATORSHIP. 

In  a  letter  of  Judge  E.  G.  Woolley,  of  St.  George,  pub- 
lished in  the  Tribune,  Dec.  6th,  the  following  paragraph  occurs: 

While  there  may  be  a  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  wisdom  of  the 
course  being  pursued  by  the  Deseret  News  in  threatening  the  supporters 
of  Thatcher  for  the  Senate,  with  Church  power,  still  I  would  rather  have 
an  open  fight  at  any  time  than  to  be  stating  one  policy  for  the  outside  to 
hear  and  pursuing  another  in  secret,  so  that  I  am  willing  to  stand  by  the 
Church  in  an  open  fight  for  any  principle  of  right,  and  at  no  matter 
what  cost. 

Judge  Woolley  is  right  in  one  thing:  he  would  rather  have 
an  "open  fight"  than  "to  be  stating  one  policy  for  the  outside 
to  hear,  and  pursuing  another  in  secret;"  and  this  "open  fight" 


PRIESTHOOD  COUNSEL   IN   POLITICS.  59 

he  is  willing  to  pursue  "at  no  matter  what  cost."  He  is  "will- 
ing to  stand  by  the  Church  for  any  principle  of  right;"  but  he 
does  not  take  time  to  discriminate  whether  the  "principle  of 
right"  belongs  to  the  Church  as  co-ordinate  with  the  State, 
leaving  Church  and  State  independent  of  each  other,  or  whether 
it  belongs  to  the  Church  as  a  means  of  absorbing  and  swallow- 
ing up  the  state.  He  seems  willing  to  let  the  Church  say  what 
it  wants,  and  then  "iSght  it  out,"  whether  or  not  the  State  is 
overwhelmed  as  the  result. 

While  open  warfare  is  preferable  to  secret  machinations, 
Ihere  is  little  doubt  that  both  methods  will  be  worked  for  all 
that  they  are  worth ;  yet  it  is  nobler  and  fairer  for  the  "Church 
organ"  to  sound  the  key  note  and  head  the  charge  with  such 
of  the  Saints  as  are  loyal  to  its  behests,  than  to  inaugurate  a 
secret  warfare  against  Mr.  Thatcher,  such  as  the  Tribune  au- 
thorizes in  its  comment  on  Judge  Woolley's  letter,  one  of  those 
strangely  inconsistent,  uncertain  and  ambiguous  counsels  for 
which  the  Tribune  has  become  famous  of  late: 

We  publish  his  (Judge  Woolley's)  letter  merely  as  a  matter  of  news, 
because  that  is  the  business  of  a  newspaper,  and  have  no  comment  to  make 
upon  it  except  this:  To  impress  upon  the  readers  of  the  Tribune  the  fact 
that  the  matter  of  the  discipline  of  the  Mormon  Church,  or  in  the  Quorum 
of  Apostles,  is  no  concernment  whatever  to  us,  and  the  only  reason  we 
have  entered  any  protest  is  that  the  organ  of  the  Mormon  Church  in  this 
city  proclaimed  a  church  warfare  on  Mr.  Thatcher  in  political  matters. 
That  is  something  no  Church  in  America  has  any  right  to  do,  and  is  in  vio- 
lation of  the  understanding  which  was  fairly  had  before  Statehood  was 
given  to  Utah.  To  make  it  clear,  if  Apostle  John  Henry  Smith  or  Presi- 
dent George  Q.  Cannon,  or  President  Woodruff  pleases  to  go  to  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Legislature  and  say:  "If  I  were  in  the  Legislature  I  would  not 
vote  for  Mr.  Thatcher,  because  he  has  needlessly  antagonized  the  religion 
in  which  we  believe,"  that  would  be  a  man's  right,  the  same  as  it  is  Mr. 
Thatcher's  right  to  be  a  candidate,  notwithstanding  his  church  troubles. 
But  when  the  organ  of  that  Church  in  effect  pulls  down  the  anathemas  of 
heaven  on  Mr.  Thatcher  or  any  other  man  to  beat  him  for  a  political  oflBce, 
that  is  a  direct  trenching  upon  the  State,  and  that  kind  of  work  must  not 
go  on  in  Utah. 

One  may  well  wonder  that  the  Tribune  should  publish  such 
an  editorial  comment.  It  evinces  a  marvelous  blindness  and 
flagrancy  of  misapprehension.  The  idea  of  monkeying  with  the 
question  of  church  and  state  by  saying  that  the  open  editorials 
of  the  News  are  objectionable  while  it  is  not  objectionable  for 
"President"  Woodruff,  "President"  Cannon,  and  "Apostle" 
Smith  to  go  privately  to  individual  members  of  the  Legislature 
— members  of  the  Church — and  make  their  fight  in  the  name 


60  THE  LATE  MANIFESTO  IN  POLITICS. 

of  the  Church  and  in  defense  of  the  Church!  And  all  this 
without  making  any  reservation  or  qualification  as  to  the  char- 
acter in  which  these  men  go,  or  the  influences  they  shall  bring 
to  bear  on  brethren  who  are  members  of  the  Legislature!  How 
blandly  those  who  are  intense  supporters  of  the  News'  policy 
will  smile  at  the  wisdom  displayed  by  a  paper  that  has  set  out 
to  champion  the  statehood  rights  and  exemptions  of  the  people 
of  Utah  under  specific  pledges  of  the  Mormon  Priesthood! 

The  point  at  issue  is  the  separation,  independence  and  co- 
ordination of  church  and  state  in  their  respective  spheres  of 
action.  Neither  the  Church  nor  any  member  or  representative 
of  the  Church  is  justifiable  in  using  means  to  influence  legisla- 
tors in  either  of  the  following  forms: 

1.  By  controlling  the  vote  of  a  member  of  the  Legislature 
by  priestly  counsel.  We  don't  need  special  inspiration  of  God 
to  tell  us  concerning  the  contents  of  the  multiplication  table 
or  any  other  problem  of  pure  or  applied  mathematics,  for  tha 
mind  is  naturally  furnished  with  the  power  to  acquire  such 
knowledge;  but  we  can  have  assistance  such  as  the  subject  mat- 
ter warrants.  It  is  the  same  with  all  secular  questions  apper- 
taining to  legislation  and  statesmanship.  The  mind  itself  is 
competent  for  all  such  things,  with  the  assistance  of  the  lights 
and  helps  of  nature. 

So  far  as  Messrs.  Woodruff,  Cannon  and  Smith  can  help 
men  along  in  the  exercise  of  their  mental  faculties  and  the  ac- 
quisition of  knowledge,  they  do  not  need  to  use  priestly  offices, 
for  they  are  working  along  a  natural  and  secular  plane.  But  it 
is  for  no  such  purpose  that  "  Presidents,"  "Apostles"  and  other 
priestly  officers  go  to  a  legislator  to  give  "counsel;"  they  go  ap- 
pealing to  the  religious  suceptibilities  of  the  human  heart;  they 
go  claiming  to  represent  Him  who  is  essentially  inscrutable 
and  incomprehensible — that  to  which  the  awe  and  mystery  of 
our  souls  respond.  Into  the  sacred  abiding  place  of  faith  and 
trust  they  make  bold  to  intrude  themselves  for  a  secular  pur- 
pose; and  from  this  center  of  religious  motive  power  they  speak 
in  the  name  of  God,  saying  that  certain  things  should  be  done. 
The  natural  grounds  and  reasons  for  the  course  recommended 
are  ignored;  the  man  is  induced  to  obey  from  priestly  dictation 
and  authority.  This  is  one  phase  of  the  nature  and  operation 
of  counsel;  but  there  is  another  equally  as  objectionable,  as 
follows : 

2.  By  setting  up  the  Church  as  imperial,  absolute  and  un- 
restricted, the  major  premise  for  all  secular  reasoning,  the  true 


PRIESTHOOD  COUNSEL  IN   POLITICS.  61 

center  and  source  of  all  right  and  authority,  the  real  and  pres- 
ent Kingdom  of  God. 

It  is  this  form  of  belief  that  pervades  Judge  Woolley's  can- 
did and  valuable  article.  He  sees  nothing,  knows  nothing  but 
the  Church;  and  what  the  Church  wants  he  is  willing  to  fight 
for,  utterly  ignoring  the  contention  that  the  "rule  of  counsel'* 
is  simply  a  piece  of  machinery  chiefly  valuable  as  a  means  of 
controlling  and  absorbing  the  state. 

Under  this  second  form  of  "priestly  counsel "  the  legislator 
is  warned  that  the  Church  is  endangerd,  that  such  a  man  is  an 
enemy  of  the  Church,  that  his  election  will  be  an  injury  to  the 
Church,  and  he  is  cautioned  against  voting  for  him;  and  all  the 
time  there  is  a  great  and  mysterious  thought  in  the  background 
— through  the  hazy  exhortations  of  "counsel,"  the  recipient,  ac- 
cording to  his  faith  in  the  Church,  thinks  he  sees  the  hand  and 
hears  the  voice  of  God! 

Frequently,  however,  the  potency  of  priestly  "counsel"  re- 
solves itself  into  a  simple  business  proposition.  There  are 
considerable  tithing  funds;  there  are  immense  debts,  and  there 
is  wild  and  daring  speculation  on  the  part  of  certain  individ- 
uals in  authority.  A  great  many  have  got  a  foot  in  it;  some 
are  in  with  both  feet;  others  are  anxious  to  get  in;  still  others 
are  equally  anxious  to  get  out;  some  have  their  living  and  em- 
ployment at  stake;  a  vision  of  destitute  and  hungry  wives  and 
babies  stares  them  in  the  face;  this  vast  net  work  of  human 
needs  and  business  complication  is  a  magazine  of  reserve 
power,  and  all  may  be  used  by  some  one  and  in  some  way  in 
<;onnection  with  "counsel." 

In  answer  to  all  unjust  and  forbidden  methods  of  proceed- 
ure  it  is  important  to  recognize  the  fact  that  American  institu- 
tions have  orignated  in  connection  with  a  clean-cut  distinction 
between  church  and  state,  that  each  is  independent,  each  has  its 
own  grounds  for  existence  and  its  own  sources  of  knowledge, 
each  has  its  own  conditions  for  progress  and  perfection ;  neither 
must  trespass  on  the  sphere  of  the  other.  Religion  must  not 
come  into  the  control  of  the  state;  neither  must  the  state  trench 
on  the  province  of  religion.  If  the  News  will  make  an  "open 
fight"  and  an  honorable  fight,  neither  ignoring  the  state  nor 
shrouding  its  own  counsels  in  a  glamour  of  false  godliness — an 
honest  battle  for  the  right — millions  of  men  and  women  will 
gladly  accord  it  a  right  to  openly  contend  in  the  political  arena. 


62  THE   LATE  MANIFESTO   IN   POLITICS. 

THE  DESERET  NEWS  ON  CHURCH  AND  STATE. 

In  numerous  issues  and  in  a  variety  of  forms  the  News  has 
laid  down  its  doctrine  of  church  and  state;  we  quote  a  sample 
paragraph  in  the  editorial  of  November  18th,  as  follows: 

The  candidacy  of  the  person  to  whom  all  this  has  reference,  is  antag- 
onized by  the  News  because  it  is  an  assault  upon  the  doctrines  and  organic 
existence  of  the  Church  of  which  this  paper  is  the  oflBcial  organ.  His  ap- 
pearance in  the  political  arena  at  this  time  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than 
this,  and  every  candid  voter  in  the  commonwealth  will  admit  it.  He  him- 
self announces  that  he  stands  upon  a  platform  equivalent  to  this  very 
proposition.  It  is  not  a  political  question,  for  the  candidate's  politics  cuts 
no  figure  in  it.  It  is  religious,  pure  and  simple,  in  that  it  involves  nothing 
more  nor  less  than  questions  relative  to  the  integrity  of  a  religious  organi- 
zation, the  maintenance  of  its  discipline,  and  the  perpetuity  of  its  doctrines. 

Note  the  following  propositions  contained  in  the  foregoing 
editorial : 

1.  "The  candidacy  of  the  person  to  whom  all  this  has  refer- 
ence (Moses  Thatcher)  is  antagonized  by  the  News  because  it 
is  an  assault  upon  the  doctrines  and  organic  existence  of  the 
Church  of  which  this  paper  is  the  official  organ." 

2.  "It  is  not  a  political  question." 

3.  "It  is  religious,  pure  and  simple,  in  that  it  involves 
nothing  more  nor  less  than  questions  relative  to  the  integrity  of 
a  religious  organization,  the  maintenance  of  its  discipline,  and 
the  perpetuity  of  its  doctrines." 

4.  "The  candidate's  politics  cut  no  figure  in  it." 

Here  are  four  propositions  expressed  in  tho  identical  lan- 
guage of  the  News'  editorial,  and  every  one  of  the  four  is  wrong 
for  the  reason  that  the  News  puts  the  Mormon  Church  in  the 
wrong  attitude;  it  puts  the  Church  where  it  ought  not  to  be;  it 
puts  the  Church  on  the  railroad  track  of  Civil  Liberty,  and  then 
finds  fault  with  the  locomotive  of  American  Freedom  because 
the  obstruction  gets  bumped  off  the  track. 

This  is  the  story  in  a  nutshell:  The  Reconvened  Conven- 
tion, October  22,  1895,  laid  down  ihe  principles  of  civil  liberty 
as  a  platform.  Moses  Thatcher  and  all  others  that  participated 
in  that  convention,  not  excepting  Mr.  Roberts,  adopted  those 
principles  and  pledged  themselves  to  stand  by  them.  The  crafty 
leaders  among  the  Mormon  Authorities,  seeing  that  they  could 
not  safely  attack  the  principles  directly,  concluded  to  do  it  by 
a  flank  movement;  so  they  promulgated  'Hhe  rule  of  counsel." 
By  this  means  they  believed  they  could  control  politics  in  the 
interest  of  the  Church ;  and  they  further  believed  they  could 


PRIESTHOOD   COUNSEL   IN   POLITICS.  DO 

control  the  Church  in  their  own  personal  interest,  and  utilize 
its  revenues  to  promote  their  wild  speculations.  In  this  way 
they  set  their  "rule  of  discipline"  on  the  track  of  Civil  Liberty, 
and  unless  Freedom  fails  in  her  Godlike  mission,  that  "rule  of 
of  Counsel"  is  going  io  he  thrown  out  of  the  way. 

Some  of  the  more  important  principles  affirmed  by  the  Re- 
convened Convention  are  as  follows  : 

"Equal  and  exact  justice  to  all  men,  and  special  privileges  to  none," 
is  the  foundation  principle  of  the  Democratic  Party.  It  is  now,  and  ever 
has  been,  the  party  of  civil  and  religious  freedom.  It  is  the  party  of  tol- 
eration. It  has  ever  been  the  defender  of  the  rights  of  individuals  and 
the  advocate  of  personal  liberty.  It  believes  in  the  people,  and  declares 
that  they  are  the  source  of  all  political  power.  It  steadfastly  maintains 
that  there  shall  be  no  invasion  of  personal  rights.  It  is  a  stanch  upholder 
of  the  doctrine  that  man  must  be  allowed  to  worship  God  where  he  chooses 
and  as  he  chooses,  without  molestation  and  without  intereference,  and 
that,  on  the  other  hand,  he  should  not  be  directed  in  his  course  toward 
governmental  affairs  by  those  whom  he  has  chosen  to  minister  to  his 
spiritual  welfare. 

We  declare  the  truth  to  be : 

I.  That  man  may  worship  his  maker  as  his  conscience  dictates. 

II.  That  no  State  nor  political  body  has  the  right  to  interfere  with 
this  great  privilege. 

III.  That  man's  first  allegiance,  politically,  is  to  his  country. 

IV.  That  no  church,  ecclesiastical  body,  nor  spiritual  adviser  should 
encroach  upon  the  political  rights  of  the  individual. 

V.  That  in  a  free  country  no  man  nor  body  of  men  can,  with  safety 
to  the  State,  use  the  name  or  the  power  of  any  religious  sect  or  society  to 
influence  or  control  the  elective  franchise. 

VI.  That  a  trust  is  imposed  upon  each  citizen  in  a  free  country  to 
act  politically  upon  his  own  judgment  and  absolutely  free  from  control  or 
dictation,  ecclesiastical  or  otherwise. 

VII.  That  no  political  party  can  be  required  to  obtain  the  consent 
of  any  church,  or  the  leader  thereof,  before  selecting  its  candidate  for  pub- 
lic office. 

VIII.  That  no  citizen,  by  reason  of  his  association  with  any  church, 
can  be  absolved  from  his  duty  to  the  state,  either  in  times  of  war  or  of  peace, 
without  the  consent  of  the  state. 

IX.  That  all  men  should  be,  and  of  right  are,  free  to  think,  free  to 
act,  free  to  speak,  and  free  to  vote,  without  fear,  molestation,  intimidation , 
or  undue  influence. 

Thus  believing,  whenever  designing  men  have  seized  upon  the  cloak 
of  religion  to  hide  from  view  their  nefarious  designs,  and  while  appealing 
to  man's  spiritual  faith  have  sought  to  direct  his  political  action  for  selfish 
ends,  the  Democratic  Party  since  its  organization  has  denounced  such  a 
course.  It  has  declared  in  the  past  and  it  declares  now  for  every  man's 
political  freedom,  whatever  may  be  the  governmental  views  of  those  who 
guide  his  spiritual  welfare. 

We  therefore,  in  the  most  solemn  manner,  say  that  we  will  not  be  so 


64  THE  LATE    MANIFESTO   IN   POLITICS. 

dictated  to,  interfered  with,  or  hindered  in  our  political  duties  by  those 
selected  to  minister  to  us  the  consolations  of  the  gospel. 

The  people  being  sovereign  in  this  free  land,  to  the  people  we  make 
our  appeal.  The  church  being  the  source  of  man's  religion,  to  the  church 
we  appeal,  when  we  so  desire,  with  regard  to  matters  affecting  the  con- 
science. 

Now  let  the  "Church  organ"  and  all  other  persons  and  or- 
ganizations take  due  notice  that  it  is  not  so  much  Moses 
Thatcher  or  any  other  individual  that  stands  in  the  way  of  the 
"rule  of  counsel"  as  the  principles  of  liberty  that  were  declared 
to  be  the  political  faith  of  the  Eeconvened  Conrention;  and  if 
the  Democratic  Party  of  Utah  proves  true  to  its  plighted  faith, 
those  principles  will  prevail;  and  if  that  party  should  prove 
recreant  to  its  trust,  some  other  party  will  maintain  its  princi- 
ples. For  Civil  Liberty  is  not  of  mushroom  growth;  it  is  not 
the  child  of  a  day;  for  centuries  it  has  been  growing,  and  it  is 
not  going  to  lose  its  meaning  or  change  its  color  because  a  few 
members  of  the  Mormon  Priesthood  plot  against  it. 

If  any  person  wishes  evidence  of  the  fact  that  the  feelings 
of  the  people  were  aroused  in  a  way  that  culminated  in  the 
declaration  of  principles  by  the  Reconvened  Convention,  and 
that  a  great  many  of  the  Mormon  people  were  in  spirit  opposed 
to  the  meaning  and  intent  of  the  "rule  of  counsel,"  and  this 
before  the  "rule  of  counsel"  was  promulgated,  let  him  consider 
the  following  telegram  which  was  signed  and  sent  at  the  time 
of  said  Convention. 

Logan,  Utah,  October  22, 1895. 

The  Democrats  of  Cache  County  unite  in  declaring  for  absolute  sep- 
aration of  church  and  state.  We  oppose  the  idea  that  men  should  be 
compelled  to  get  permission  from  ecclesiastical  authorities  before  exercis- 
ing their  political  rights.  We  deny  that  Democrats  are  religiously  or  other- 
wise bound  to  follow  the  advice  of  Republicans  in  making  up  Democratic 
tickets.  We  shall  uphold  every  legitimate  effort  of  our  party  to  resist  and 
disavow  such  pretensions,  if  any  such  have  been  made.  Stand  firm  for  the 
right. 

J.  H.  Paul,  G.  W.  Thatcher,  I.  C.  Thoresen,  Joseph  Kimball,  William 
Haslam,  W.  R.  Owen,  Jesse  S.  Hancey,  William  Sparks,  John  Dale,  Aaron 
F.  Farr,  Jr.,  Joseph  H.  Olsen,  Frank  K.  Nebeker,  O.  A,  Reavil,  Don  C. 
Musser,  Fred  Turner,  Will  G.  Farrell,  S.  M.  Molen,  W.  G.  Reese,  B.  G. 
Thatcher,  William  Edwards,  E.  G.  Robinson,  A.  D.  Smith,  John  Bench, 
Noble  Warrum,  Jr.,  Joseph  Monson,  Arthur  Hart,  H.  J.  Matthews,  H.  A. 
Campbell,  Martin  Woolf,  Newell  W.  Kimball,  J.  M.  Blair,  J.  Li.  Payne, 
Thomas  L.  Obray,  James  C.  Orr,  Alma  Olsen,  James  Lofthouse,  Thomas 
Leishman,  Joseph  Quinny,  M.  A.  Hendricks,  H.  G.  Hayball,  Chas.  W. 
Maughan,  Joseph  Wilson,  Samuel  Clarke,  John  Robinson,  G.  M.  Thompson, 
John  M.  Wilson. 


PRIESTHOOD   COUNSEL   IN   POLITICS.  65 

With  two  exceptions  these  men  are  Latter-Day  Saints,  and 
on  last  June  the  Democracy  of  Cache  County  met  again  in  con- 
vention and,  with  the  exception  of  five,  themselves  personal 
friends  of  Thatcher,  the  convention  of  150  representative  men 
of  the  county  agreed  upon  and  adopted  the  following  resolu- 
tions : 

We  are  opposed  to  any  union,  and  to  any  attempt  at  union,  real,  ap- 
parent, possible  or  potential,  of  the  church  and  the  state.  In  the  language 
of  the  Utah  Constitution,  the  supreme  law  of  this  commonwealth,  "there 
shall  be  no  union  of  church  and  state,  nor  shall  any  church  dominate  the 
State  or  interfere  with  its  functions."  We  declare  the  State  to  be  the  su- 
preme authority  in  all  matters  that  concern  the  political  rights  and  duties 
of  its  citizens.  We  believe  it  prejudicial  to  the  interests  of  the  State  if 
any  organization  existing  under  its  laws  should  visit  penalties,  disabilities 
or  disadvantages,  upon  any  cit'zen  of  this  State  because  of  his  free  choice 
of  his  political  party,  and  participation  in  the  ordinary  duties  of  citizen- 
ship. We  believe  that  citizens  should  conform  to  whatever  the  State  ex- 
pressly and  of  right  commands  them  to  do;  and  in  return  for  the  benefits 
and  protection  which  the  State  guarantees  to  them,  that  they  should 
serve  the  State,  whether  in  peace  by  casting  a  free  and  untrammeled  ballot, 
or  by  holding  public  office  at  the  call  of  a  majority  of  the  citizens,  or  in  war 
by  bearing  arms;  in  all  necessary  ways  should  defend,  honor  and  obey  the 
institutions  and  laws  of  the  country.  The  State  has  the  right  to  demand 
that  whatever  rules  of  discipline  may  be  adopted  by  any  society  for  the 
regulation  of  the  political  action  of  the  society's  own  members,  those  rules 
must  be  consistent  with  the  laws  of  the  land  and  with  the  genius  of  free 
institutions  and  should  be  uniform  in  operation,  applying  with  strictness 
and  impartiality  to  each  member  of  the  class  for  whom  they  are  intended, 
and  showing  favors  to  none. 

We  reassert  with  all  possible  candor  and  plainness,  that  any  interfer- 
ence with  the  free  exercise  of  the  rights  of  the  elective  franchise  will  not 
be  tolerated  or  condoned  in  our  midst,  so  long  as  the  Democratic  party 
shall  be  able  to  maintain  inviolate  these  sacred  rights  of  our  citizens.  And, 
conversely,  the  Democratic  party  hereby  reaffirms  in  behalf  of  every  person 
and  every  society,  religious,  social  or  political,  in  this  State,  the  time-hon- 
ored doctrine  of  true  Democracy,  in  the  guarantee  of  the  utmost  toleration 
and  protection  of  each  under  the  law,  with  special  favors  to  none  and 
equal  rights  to  all. 

We  reaffirm  the  correctness  of  the  doctrines  of  personal  liberty  which 
were  announced  by  the  Reconvened  Convention,  as  principles  which  are 
dear  to  the  heart  of  every  true  citizen  of  this  Republic,  and  we  endorse 
the  course  of  our  esteemed  fellow-citizen,  Hon.  Moses  Thatcher,  in  main- 
taining his  stand  upon  these  principles  of  truth  and  justice  amid  the 
combined  misfortunes  of  sickness,  hostile  criticism,  and  the  honest  mis- 
conception of  perhaps  both  friend  and  foe.  * 

Anybody  can  see  that  it  is  not  Moses  Thatcher,  or  the  Re- 
convened Convention,  or  anyone  else  that  is*  attacking  the 
Church,  or  interfering  with  its  doctrine  or  discipline;  but  it  is  the 


66  THE  LATE  MANIFESTO   IN   POLITICS. 

framers  of  the  **rule  of  counsel"  that  have  put  themselves  in 
the  pathway  of  Civil  Liberty;  and  if  there  is  to  be  a  struggle 
for  Liberty  and  for  a  separation  of  Church  and  State  in  Utah, 
^'may  God  protect  the  right.'' 


CHAPTER  EIGHTH. 


THE  MANIFESTO  EXAMINED. 

Follovs^ing  is  the  Manifesto  in  full,  as  first  published  in  the 
Salt  Lake  Herald. 

To  the  Officers  and  Members  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter-Day 
Saints,  in  General  Conference  Assembled: 

Dear  Brethren  and  Sisters — Every  Latter-Day  Saint  will  recognize 
the  value  of  union,  not  only  in  action,  but  in  matters  of  faith  and  disci- 
pline. As  to  the  rights  and  authority  of  the  priesthood  of  the  Son  of  God, 
it  is  of  the  highest  importance  that  there  should  be  no  diflference  of  opinion 
among  the  officers  and  members  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter- 
Day  Saints.  Feeling  the  necessity  of  a  correct  understanding  of  this  prin- 
ciple, we  deem  it  proper  at  this  sixty-sixth  anniversary  of  the  orginazation 
of  the  Church  in  these  last  days,  to  prepare  and  present  a  statement  on  the 
subject,  embodying  the  doctrine  which  has  always  prevailed  in  the  Church 
and  our  views  upon  it.  We  are  prompted  to  adopt  this  course  at  the  present 
time,  because  of  events  which  have  happened  during  the  late  political  con- 
test. A  great  diversity  of  opinion  on  the  subject  has  been  expressed,  and 
even  by  leading  elders  in  the  Church,  which  latter  fact  has  naturally  led 
in  some  instances  to  considerable  division  of  sentiment. 

It  is  of  great  importance  that  we  understand  each  other,  and  that 
there  be  harmony  in  our  teachings.  It  is  especially  important  that  those 
teachings  shall  be  in  accordance  with  the  rules  and  regulations  and  doc- 
trines which  have  been  taught,  and  which  have  prevailed  from  the  begin- 
ning until  the  present  time,  having  not  only  the  sanction  of  undisputed 
usage,  but  the  approval  of  all  faithful  leaders  in  the  Church  and  of  Him  in 
whose  name  and  by  whose  authority  they  act. 

THE  RECENT  ELECTION. 

In  the  late  exciting  contest,  to  which  reference  has  been  made,  the 
presiding  authorities  in  some  instances  have  been  misunderstood.  In  other 
instances  they  have  been  misrepresented,  which  has  led  to  a  wrongful  con- 
ception of  their  real  views.  It  has  been  asserted  too  freely,  and  without 
foundation,  that  there  has  been  a  disposition  on  their  part  to  interfere 
with  individual  liberty  and  to  rebuke  in  some  men  a  course  which  was  ap- 
plauded in  others.    In  a  word,  that  they  have  appeared  to  desire  to  assert 


THE   MANIFESTO   EXAMINED.  67 

and  maintain  an  unjust  and  oppressive  control  over  the  actions  of  the 
members  of  the  Cnurch,  and  in  thus  doing  have  endeavored  to  effect  a 
union  of  church  and  state.  In  the  heat  of  political  discussion,  assertions 
have  been  made  and  arguments  used  conveying  to  the  public  mind  a  false 
idea  concerning  the  position  of  the  officers  of  the  Church,  and  leaving  the 
impression  that  there  has  been  and  was  now  being  made  an  attempt  to  ac- 
complish the  union  above  referred  to.  Now  that  the  excitement  has 
passed,  and  calmer  reason  has  resumed  its  sway,  we  think  it  prudent  to  set 
forth,  BO  that  all  may  understand,  the  exact  position  occupied  by  the  lead- 
ing authorities  of  the  Church. 

NO  UNION  OF  CHURCH  AND  STATE. 

In  the  first  place  we  wish  to  state  in  the  most  positive  and  emphatic 
language  that  at  no  time  has  there  ever  been  any  attempt  or  even  desire 
on  the  part  of  leading  authorities  referred  to  to  have  the  Church  in  any 
manner  encroach  upon  the  rights  of  the  State,  or  to  unite  in  any  degree 
the  functions  of  one  with  those  of  the  other. 

Peculiar  circumstances  have  surrounded  the  people  of  Utah.  For 
many  years  a  majority  of  them  in  every  portion  of  the  Territory  belonged 
to  one  church,  every  reputable  member  of  which  was  entitled  to  hold  and 
did  hold  some  ecclesiastical  office.  It  is  easy  to  see  how,  to  the  casual  ob- 
server, it  might  appear  singular  that  so  many  officers  of  the  Church  were 
also  officers  of  the  State;  but  while  this  was  in  fact  the  case,  the  distinc- 
tion between  Church  and  State  throughout  those  years  was  carefully 
maintained.  The  President  of  the  Church  held  for  eight  years  the  highest 
civil  office  in  the  community,  having  been  appointed  by  the  national  ad- 
ministration. Governor  of  the  Territory.  The  first  Secretary  of  the  Ter 
ritory  was  a  prominent  Church  official.  An  Apostle  represented  the  Ter- 
ritory in  Congress,  as  a  Delegate  during  ten  years.  The  members  of  the 
legislature  also  held  offices  in  the  Church.  This  was  unavoidable;  for  the 
most  suitable  men  were  elected  by  the  votes  of  the  people,  and,  as  we  have 
stated,  every  reputable  man  in  the  entire  community  held  some  Church 
position,  the  most  energetic  and  capable  holding  leading  positions.  This 
is  all  natural  and  plain  enough  to  those  who  consider  the  circumstances; 
but  it  furnished  opportunity  for  those  who  were  disposed  to  assail  the  peo- 
ple of  the  Territory  to  charge  them  with  attempting  to  unite  church  and 
^tate.  A  fair  investigation  of  the  conditions  will  abundantly  disprove  the 
charges  and  show  its  utter  falsity. 

On  behalf  of  the  Church  of  which  we  are  leading  officials,  we  desire 
again  to  state  to  the  members  and  also  to  the  public  generally,  that  there 
has  not  been,  nor  is  there,  the  remotest  desire  on  our  part  or  on  the  part 
of  our  co-religionists  to  do  anything  looking  to  a  union  of  church  and 
state. 

INDIVIDUAL  LIBERTY. 

We  declare  that  there  has  never  been  any  attempt  to  curtail  individ 
ual  liberty — the  personal  liberty  of  any  of  the  officers  or  members  of  the 
Church.    The  First  Presidency  and  other  leading  officers  did  make  certain 
suggestions  to  the  people  when  the  division  on  party  lines  took  place.  Tha 
movement  was  an  entirely  new  departure,  and  it  was  necessary  in  order 
that  the  full  benefit  should  not  be  lost  which  was  hoped  to  result  from 


68  THE   LATE    MANIFESTO   IN   POLITICS. 

this  new  political  division,  that  people  who  were  inexperienced  should  be 
warned  against  hasty  and  ill-considered  action.  In  some  cases  they  were 
counseled  to  be  wise  and  prudent  in  the  political  steps  they  were  about  to 
take,  and  this  with  no  idea  of  winning  them  against  their  will  to  either 
side.  To  this  extent,  and  no  further,  was  anything  said  or  done  upon  this 
question,  and  at  no  time  and  under  no  circumstances  was  any  attempt 
made  to  say  to  voters  how  they  should  cast  their  ballots.  Any  charge  that 
has  been  made  to  the  contrary  is  utterly  false. 

CANNON  IN  POLITICS. 

Concerning  officers  of  the  Church  themselves,  the  feeling  was  gener- 
ally expressed  in  the  beginning  of  the  political  division  spoken  of,  that  it 
would  be  prudent  for  leading  men  not  to  accept  of  oJBRce  at  the  hands  of 
the  political  party  to  which  they  might  belong.  This  counsel  was  given  to 
men  of  both  parties  alike — not  because  it  was  thought  that  there  was  any 
impropriety  in  religious  men  holding  civil  office,  nor  to  deprive  them  of 
any  of  the  rights  of  citizeship,  but  because  of  the  feeling  that  it  would  be 
better  under  all  the  circumstances  which  had  now  arisen  to  avoid  any 
action  that  would  be  likely  to  create  jealousy  and  ill-feeling.  An  era  of 
peace  and  good  will  seemed  to  be  dawning  upon  the  people,  and  it  was 
deemed  good  to  shun  everyting  that  could  have  the  least  tendency  to  pre- 
vent the  consummation  of  this  happy  prospect.  In  many  instances,  how- 
ever, the  pressure  brought  to  bear  upon  efficient  and  popular  men  by  the 
members  of  the  party  to  which  they  belonged  was  of  such  a  character  that 
they  had  to  yield  to  the  solicitation  to  accept  nomination  to  office,  or  sub- 
ject themselves  to  the  suspicion  of  bad  faith  in  their  party  affiliations.  In 
some  cases  they  did  this  without  consulting  the  authorities  of  the  Church; 
but  where  important  positions  were  held,  and  where  the  duties  were  of  a 
responsible  character,  some  did  seek  the  counsel  and  advice  of  the  leading 
Church  authorities  before  accepting  the  political  honors  tendered  them. 
Because  some  others  did  not  seek  this  counsel  and  advice,  ill-feeling  was 
engendered  and  undue  and  painful  sensitiveness  was  stimulated;  mis- 
understanding readily  followed,  and  as  a  result  the  authorities  of  the 
Church  were  accused  of  bad  faith,  and  made  the  subjects  of  bitter  re- 
proach. We  have  maintained  that  in  the  case  of  men  who  hold  high  posi- 
tions in  the  Church,  whose  duties  are  well  defined,  and  whose  ecclesias- 
tical labors  are  understood  to  be  continuous  and  necessary,  it  would  be  an 
improper  thing  to  accept  political  office  or  enter  into  any  vocation  that 
would  distract  or  remove  them  from  the  religious  duties  resting  upon  them 
without  first  consulting  and  obtaining  the  approval  of  their  associates  and 
those  who  preside  over  them.  It  has  been  understood  from  the  very  be- 
ginning of  the  Church  that  no  officer  whose  duties  are  of  the  character  re- 
ferred to,  has  the  right  to  engage  in  any  pursuit,  political  or  otherwise, 
that  will  divide  his  time  and  remove  his  attention  from  the  calling  already 
accepted.  It  has  been  the  constant  practice  with  officers  of  the  Church  to 
consult  -  or,  to  use  our  language,  to  "counsel" — with  their  brethren  con- 
cerning all  questions  of  this  kind.  They  have  not  felt  that  they  were  sac- 
rificing their  manhood  in  doing  so,  nor  that  they  were  submitting  to  im- 
proper dictation,  nor  that  in  soliciting  and  acting  upon  the  advice  of  those 
over  them  they  were  in  any  manner  doing  away  with  their  individual 
rights  and  agency,  nor  that  to  any  improper  degree  were  their  rights  and 


THE  MANIFESTO  EXAMINED.  69 

duties  as  American  citizens  being  abridged  or  interfered  with.  They  real- 
ize that  in  accepting  ecclesiastical  office  they  assumed  certain  obligations; 
that  among  these  was  the  obligation  to  magnify  the  office  which  they  held, 
to  attend  to  its  duties  in  preference  to  every  other  labor,  and  to  devote 
themselves  exclusively  to  it  with  all  the  zeal,  industry  and  strength  they 
possessed,  unless  released  in  part  or  for  a  time  by  those  who  preside  over 
them.  Our  view,  and  it  has  been  the  view  of  all  our  predecessors,  is  that 
no  officer  of  our  Church,  especially  those  in  high  standing,  should  take  a 
course  to  violate  this  long-established  practice.  Rather  than  disobey  it, 
and  declare  himself  defiantly  independent  of  his  associates  and  his  file 
leaders,  it  has  always  been  held  that  it  would  be  better  for  a  man  to  resign 
the  duties  of  his  priesthood;  and  we  entertain  the  same  view  to-day. 

In  view  of  all  the  occurrences  to  which  reference  has  been  made,  and 
to  the  diversity  of  views  that  have  arisen  among  the  people  in  conse 
quence,  we  feel  it  to  be  our  duty  to  clearly  define  our  position,  so  there 
may  be  no  cause  hereafter  for  dispute  or  controversy  upon  the  subject: 

First — We  unanimously  agree  to  and  promulgate  as  a  rule  that  should 
always  be  observed  in  the  Church  and  by  every  leading  official  thereof, 
that  before  accepting  any  position,  political  or  otherwise,  which  would 
interfere  with  the  proper  and  complete  discharge  of  his  ecclesiastical 
duties,  and  before  accepting  a  nomination  or  entering  into  engagements 
to  perform  new  duties  said  official  should  apply  to  the  proper  authorities 
and  learn  from  them  whether  he  can  consistently  with  the  obligations 
already  entered  into  with  the  Church  upon  assuming  his  office,  take  upon 
himself  the  added  duties  and  labors  and  responsibilities  of  the  new  posi- 
tion. To  maintain  proper  discipline  and  order  in  the  Church,  we  deem  it 
absolutely  necessary;  and  in  asserting  this  rule,  we  do  not  consider  that 
we  are  infringing  in  the  least  degree  upon  the  individual  rights  of  the 
citizen.  Our  position  is  that  a  man  having  accepted  the  honors  and 
obligations  of  ecclesiastical  office  in  the  Church,  cannot  properly,  of  his 
own  volition,  make  those  honors  subordinate  to  or  even  co-ordinate  with 
new  ones  of  an  entirely  different  character;  we  hold  that  unless  he  is  will- 
ing to  counsel  with  and  obtain  the  consent  of  his  fellow-laborers  and  pre- 
siding officers  in  the  priesthood,  he  should  be  released  from  all  obligations 
associated  with  the  latter,  before  accepting  any  new  position. 

Second — We  declare  that  in  making  those  requirements  of  ourselves 
and  our  brethern  in  the  ministry,  we  do  not  in  the  least  desire  to  dictate 
to  them  concerning  their  duties  as  American  citizens,  or  to  interfere  with 
the  affairs  of  the  State;  neither  do  we  consider  that  in  the  remotest  degree 
we  are  seeking  the  union  of  church  and  state.  We  once  more  here  repu- 
diate the  insinuation  that  there  is  or  ever  has  been  an  attempt  by  our  lead- 
ing men  to  trespass  upon  the  ground  occupied  by  the  State,  or  that  there 
has  been  or  is  the  wish  to  curtail  in  any  manner  any  of  its  functions. 

Your  brethren, 

WiLFORD  Woodruff, 
Geo.  Q.  Cannon, 
Jos.  P.  Smith, 

First  Presidency. 

The  following  is  a  discussion  of  the  Manifesto  by  sections 
and  paragraphs  in  consecutive  order.     In  each  section  it  is  in- 


70  THE   LATE   MANIFESTO  IN   POLITICS. 

tended  to  present,  not  only  the  surface  meaning,  but  also  the 
more  latent  significance  of  the  language.  In  some  cases  the 
real  meaning  lies  between  the  lines. 

1.    To  the  Officers  and  Members  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter- 
Day  Saints,  in  General  Conference  Assembled  : 
Dear  Brethren  and  Sisters — Every  Latter-Day  Saint  will  recognize 
the  value  of  union,  not  only  in  action,  but  in  matters  of  faith  and  disci- 
pline. 

It  is  noticeable  in  this  enumeration  of  items  in  which  union 
is  desired,  that  the  most  important  requisite,  the  only  one 
really  and  truly  attainable,  is  omitted  :  That  is  love — Chris- 
tian love  and  sympathy.  Love  unites  opposites;  it  blends  the 
numberless  diversities  of  human  life  into  harmony;  it  is  the 
bond  of  perfection;  without  it  all  other  union  is  ''sounding 
brass  or  a  tinkling  cymbal." 

The  glory  of  love  as  the  bond  of  union  is  that  it  is  broader 
than  church;  it  thrills  the  heart  of  motherhood  throughout  all 
animate  creation;  it  dances  with  the  motes  in  the  sunbeam;  it 
murmurs  with  the  brooks;  it  moves  with  the  tides  of  the 
ocean;  it  joins  its  melody  with  the  music  of  the  spheres. 
There  may  be  diversities  of  beliefs  and  practice;  but  with 
unity  of  love  the  heights  are  scaled  and  the  ideals  of  the  Lord 
Christ  are  achieved. 

THE  SPECIAL  THEME. 

2.  As  to  the  rights  and  authority  of  the  Priesthood  of  the  Son  of  God,  it 
is  of  the  highest  importance  that  there  should  be  no  difference  of  opinion 
among  the  officers  and  members  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter- 
Day  Saints. 

The  special  topic  proposed  in  the  Manifesto  is  "the  rights 
and  authority  of  the  Priesthood."  There  must  be  "no  dif- 
ference of  opinion."  This  looks  like  centralization  wherein 
one  mind  does  the  thinking  and  prohibits  all  other  thought. 
With  brotherly  love  there  might  be  unity  and  harmony  in  the 
midst  of  great  diversity  of  opinion;  but  without  it  everything 
must  run  on  the  dead  plane  of  machinery. 

A  FUNDAMENTAL  PRINCIPLE. 

3.  Feeling  the  necessity  of  a  correct  understanding  of  this  principle, 
we  deem  it  proper  at  this  Sixty-sixth  Anniversary  of  the  organization  of 
the  Church  in  these  last  days,  to  prepare  and  present  a  statement  on  the 
subject,  embodying  the  doctrine  which  has  always  prevailed  in  the  Church, 
and  our  views  upon  it. 


THE   MANIFESTO    EXAMINED.  71 

To  explain  a  principle  is  to  state  its  nature  and  origin.  This 
the  manifesto  does  not  attempt  to  do.  It  does  not  define  the 
"rights*'  of  priesthood;  but  it  elaborates  and  enforces  the  "au- 
tln  rit}^"  of  the  priesthood  which  manifests  itself  through  "coun- 
sel." This  counsel  applies  to  all  things;  but  in  this  manifesto  it  is 
applied  chiefly  to  political  affairs.  It  is  in  reference  to  political 
matters  that  the  authorities  speak  of  "feeling  the  necessity  of  a 
correct  understanding  of  this  principle."  But  they  do  not  ex- 
plain a  principle;  they  simply  enforce  a  rule  of  practice. 

A  SOVEREIGN  REMEDY  APPLIED. 

4. — We  are  prompted  to  adopt  this  course  at  the  present  time  because 
of  events  which  have  happened  during  the  late  political  contest. 

Certain  political  events  have  occurred;  an  emergency  arises; 
they  "feci  the  necessity  of  preparing  and  presenting  a  statement" 
of  the  doctrine  of  priesthood;  their  "statement"  culminates  in 
the  duty  of  "counsel ;"  the  old  usages  and  teachings  of  the  church 
all  point  to  counsel  as  the  first  and  foremost  of  obligations;  and 
in  this  emergency  counsel  is  what  is  necessary  to  redeem  and 
prcser\'e  the  church  from  dissensions  and  calamities  that  seem 
imminent  What  is  necessary  is  to  restore  the  customary  and 
time  honored  authority-  of  the  priesthood.  In  order  to  restore 
"union  in  action,  faith  and  discipline,"  there  must  be  under  the 
new  politics,  the  same  recognition  of  counsel  as  under  the  old 
regime. 

DIVERSITIES  DEPLORED. 

5. — A  great  diversity  of  opinion  on  the  subject  has  been  expressed,  and 
even  by  leading  elders  in  the  church,  which  latter  fact  has  naturally  led 
in  some  instances  to  considerable  division  of  sentiment. 

Some  are  ducks  that  take  to  the  water;  others  are  chickens 
that  scratch  the  ground.  They  entertain  differences  of  opinion 
about  the  many  things  that  enter  into  governmental  policy. 
They  develop  differences  of  moral  and  economic  instinct.  Some 
are  jealous  of  every  encroachment  on  individual  and  personal 
rights.  Others  are  zealous  for  combined  effort  and  the  exhi- 
bition of  strong  governing  power  as  a  means  of  safety  and  wel- 
fare. 

This  diversity  of  opinion  is  a  new  phase  of  things,  and  it  can 
only  be  met  by  "counsel."  Instead  of  diversity  of  opinion,  there 
nmst  be  unity;  and  instead  of  many  minds  running  off  here  and 
there,  only  one  mind  must  do  the  thinking;  and  when  this  cen- 
tral thinking  is  spread  out  to  the  periphery  by  means  of  "counsel" 


72  THE   LATE    MANIFESTO   IN   POLITICS. 

the  pur]:>ose  of  "union  in  faith,  discipHne  and  action"  will  have 
been  achieved. 

WHAT  MIGHT  BE. 

There  is  only  one  line  of  thinking  that  seems  to  threaten  a 
disturbance  of  the  counseled  unity  that  tolerates  "no  difference 
of  opinion;"  that  is  the  thinking  suggested  by  the  Declaration  of 
Independence.  But  why  should  we  fear  to  welcome  the  highest 
and  truest  attitude  of  the  human  soul — that  of  freedom,  indepen- 
dence and  self-reliance?  God  himself  is  independent  and  abso- 
lute; and  no  soul  can  be  truly  begotten  in  his  image  without 
sharing  his   absoluteness. 

Wha-  would  happen  the  Mormon  church  were  a  majority  of 
its  members  to  im_bibe  in  its  full  meaning  and  effect,  the  lesson  of 
the  Declaration  of  Independence?  Would  it  weaken  the  church 
or  dim  its  glory  ?  No.  It  would  put  the  church  in  the  way  of 
true  progress  and  efficiency.  It  would  release  it  from  the  care 
of  trivial  burdens  of  a  material,  civil  and  temporal  character,  and 
it  would  encourage  the  mind  and  spirit  of  the  church  to  develop 
those  higher  truths  that  are  needed  to  lift  the  world  out  of  the 
slough  of  materialism  and  monetary  greed  into  which  it  has 
fallen. 

We  are  now  importing  from  Asia  doctrines  concerning  the  soul 
and  eternal  life;  and  with  much  of  illusion  and  error  these  doc- 
trines arc  spreading  over  the  country  in  a  way  to  counteract 
the  sordid  tendencies  of  the  age.  They  find  a  welcome  because 
they  are  a  needed  antidote  for  ills  that  are  afflicting  the  souls 
of  the  race.  And  Mormonism  has  a  groundwork  of  doctrine 
of  the  soul  and  eternal  life  that  goes  far  towards  satisfying  the 
want  for  the  sake  of  which  many  people  are  hunting  up  the  rec- 
ords of  thought  dating  back  to  the  dawn  of  human  history. 

Would  it  be  diminishing  the  sphere  and  splendor  of  the  Mor- 
mon church  to  take  off  its  hands  from  the  miserable  squabbles 
of  politics  and  the  sordid  weight  of  business  interests  in  order 
that  it  might  more  truly  and  effectively  explore  and  reveal  the 
domain  of  eternal  life?  No.  This  would  be  to  exalt  the  church 
and  put  it  in  the  way  of  fulfilling  its  true  mission. 

AN  OPEN  FAITH. 

6, — It  is  of  great  importance  that  we  understand  each  other,  and  that 
there  be  harmony  in  our  teachings. 

It  is  net  so  important  that  ministers  of  the  gospel  should 
"understand  each  other"  as  to  understand  Christ  and  his  teach- 


THE    MANIFESTO   EXAMINED.  73 

ings.  Having  the  same  sources  of  knowledge  and  the  same 
grtat  le.uUi,  if  they  are  faithful  to  those,  they  can  not  fail  to 
cumprchoiid  each  other. 

There  wtre  numerous  secret  religious  orders  in  ancient  times; 
but  Christ  did  not  approve  of  them.  When  asked  concerning 
his  doctrine  he  replied,  "I  spake  openly  to  the  world;  I  ever 
taught  in  the  synagogue,  and  in  the  temple  whither  the  Jews 
resort;  and  in  secret  have  I  said  nothing.  Why  askest  thou  me? 
Ask  tlx-ni  which  heard  me,  what  I  have  said  unto  them.  Behold 
they  know  what  I  said.'*    John,  18:20. 

The  great  truths  of  life  and  being,  of  mathematics  and  philoso- 
phy, of  nn  rals  and  religion  are  all  an  open  book,  as  free  as  the 
air  and  sunlight,  as  unobstructed  as  the  open  vault  of  heaven. 

1+  is  a  menace  to  public  welfare  when  any  order  of  men, 
whether  secular  or  religious,  have  a  secret  understanding  with 
eacli  other.  Especially  in  Christian  work  should  there  be  an 
open  book  known  and  read  of  all  men.  The  more  sunlight  and 
publicity  the  better  for  public  morality. 

IS  DIVERSITY  UNDESIRABLE? 

7. — It  is  especially  important  that  these  teachings  shall  be  in  accord- 
ance with  the  rules  and  regulations  and  doctrines  which  have  been  taught 
and  which  have  prevailed  from  the  beginning  until  the  present  time, 
having  not  only  the  sanction  of  undisputed  usage,  but  the  approval  of  all 
faithful  leaders  in  the  church  and  of  him  in  whose  name  and  by  whose 
authority  they  act. 

Uniformity  of  belief  and  teaching  is  desirable  if  it  be  not  at 
the  expense,  of  independence  and  individuality.  It  is  far  more 
important  to  presei*ve  the  personal  coloring  that  distinguishes 
men  and  women,  than  to  create  unanimity  by  arbitrary  processes. 
Men  arc  made  so  as  to  think  and  act  differently;  yet  all  may  be 
equally  divine;  even  as  the  leaves  of  the  trees  and  the  sands  of 
the  sea  differ  each  from  the  other.  There  is  unity  in  diversity; 
and  it  requires  all  to  reveal  the  fullness  of  the  infinite.  The  nu- 
merous historic  religions  present  diverse  phases  of  truth.  Doubt- 
less each  one  will  be  found  to  reveal  some  special  color  that 
enters  into  combination  with  all  the  others  to  make  the  pure 
wlrlte  light  of  the  eternal  sun  of  righteousness. 

*The  rules  and  regulations  which  have  been  taught  and  which 
have  prevailed  from  the  beginning,"  are  proposed  above  as  a 
means  of  settling  political  differences  of  opinion  and  policy.  As 
said  in  Sec,  5.  "a  great  diversity  of  opinion  (in  politics)  has  led 
to  division  of  sentiment."  Then  comes  the  exhortation  to  be 
of  one  mind,  to  understand  each  other,  to  unite  in  the  usages 


74  THE   LATE   MANIFESTO   IN   POLITICS. 

and  teachings  (counsel)  of  the  past  years  of  church  activity,  and 
all  as  a  moans  of  preventing  diversity  and  division  of  sentiment 
in  poh^-ics. 

How  do  divisions  of  sentiment  arise?  We  have  an  illustration 
in  the  reconvened  convention,  Oct  22,  1895.  When  this  body 
afRrmecl  for  individuals  the  rights  and  principles  of  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence,  such  action  would  naturally  create  a 
division  of  sentiment  as  to  submitting  to  "counsel"  any  matter 
other  than  such  as  belonged  to  the  church  in  its  proper  spiritual 
sphere.  Whoever  believed  in  the  Declaration  intelHgently  would 
be  slow  to  ask  "counsel"  in  any  matter  of  party  politics. 

The  Mormon  people  regard  the  Declaration  as  inspired.  The 
question  ai'ises,  which  is  the  greater  inspiration,  the  Declaration, 
or  priestly  "counsel"  on  political  issues?  Surely  the  magna  charta 
of  American  independence  is  the  outcome  of  all  the  ages;  it  is 
an  epoch  in  the  development  of  humanity — the  monument  set 
up  as  a  nemorial  of  all  progress  hitherto  made  in  human  govern- 
ment: and  it  is  fair  to  believe  that  whatever  else  perishes,  the 
Declaration  will  survive  the  wreck  of  time. 

SMOKE  WITHOUT  FIRE. 

8.  In  the  late  exciting  contest,  to  which  reference  has  been  made, 
the  presidinsr  authorities  in  some  instances  have  been  misunderstood.  In 
other  instances  they  have  been  misrepresented,  which  has  led  to  a  wrong- 
ful conception  of  their  real  views.  It  has  been  asserted  too  freely,  and 
without  foundation,  that  there  has  been  a  disposition  on  their  part  to 
interfere  with  individual  liberty  and  to  rebuke  in  some  men  a  course 
which  was  applauded  in  others.  In  a  word,  that  they  have  appeared  to 
desire  to  assert  and  maintain  an  unjust  and  oppressive  control  over  the 
actions  of  the  members  of  the  church,  and  in  thus  doing  have  en- 
deavored to  effect  a  union  of  church  and  state. 

Why  should  there  be  so  much  smoke  and  no  fire?  It  is  singu- 
lar that  in  this  manifesto  there  is  a  large  space  taken  up  in  re- 
peated disclaimers  like  the  foregoing  wherein  it  is  asserted  that 
there  has  not  been  any  desire  or  attempt  to  unite  church  and 
state:  yet,  as  will  be  seen,  in  no  place  is  there  any  definition  of 
the  sphere  and  function  of  either  church  or  state.  We  can  not 
tell  wh?^  the  chief  authorities  mean  when  they  refer  to  one  or  the 
other.  Doubtless  they  may  have  been  misunderstood  and  mis- 
represented ;  but  in  a  document  put  to  the  church  and  the  "public 
generally,"  there  should  be  full  explanation  made.  We  can,  how- 
ever, set  cut  the  rights  and  authority  of  the  state;  and  we  can 
a«''«'i:ain  with  some  certainty  from  this  manifesto  the  rights 
and  authr)rity  claimed  for  the  priesthood;  and  it  will  be  easy  to 
measure  the  conflict,  if  any  there  be. 


THE   MANIFESTO   EXAMINED.  75 

REITERATION. 

9.  In  the  heat  of  political  discussion,  assertions  have  been  made  and 
argfuments  used  conveying  to  the  public  mind  a  false  idea  concerning  the 
position  of  the  officers  of  the  Church,  and  leaving  the  impression  that  there 
has  been  and  was  now  being  made  an  attempt  to  accomplish  the  union 
above  referred  to. 

This  last  paragraph  seems  to  be  a  repetition  of  the  previous 
one  in  substance.  If  the  published  report  of  the  high  council 
meeting  at  Logan  were  true  history,  would  the  people,  with  all 
their  "misunderstanding  and  misrepresentation,"  be  very  far 
wrong  in  charging  the  authorities  with  serious  and  unwarrantable 
intermeddling  with  politics  and  the  state?  It  does  not  seem  that 
they  wc  uld ;  and  what  is  more — there  are  so  many  testimonials  of 
the  correctness  of  the  report  of  the  meeting  that  denials  seem 
quite  useless. 

EXPLANATION  PROPOSED. 

10.  Now  that  the  excitement  has  passed,  and  calmer  reason  has  re- 
sumed its  sway,  we  think  it  prudent  to  set  forth,  so  that  all  may  under- 
stand, the  exact  position  occupied  by  the  leading  authorities  of  the 
Church . 

Here  is  an  appeal  to  reason  and  intelligence.  A  judicial  frame 
of  mind,  calm  and  dispassionate,  is  invoked.  The  authorities 
have  acted  in  the  late  "political  contest"  in  accordance  with  the 
teachings,  rules  and  precedents  of  the  church;  and  it  is  all  an  ob- 
ject lesson  setting  forth  the  authority  and  sphere  of  priesthood. 
They  pr(jpose  to  find  a  panacea  for  all  political  differences,  ills 
and  controversies  in  the  faith  and  usage  of  the  church;  and  all 
this  is  to  be  applied  by  "counsel." 

GENERAL  DENIAL  AS  TO  UNION  OF  CHURCH  AND 

STATE. 

11.  In  the  first  place  we  wish  to  state  in  the  most  positive  and  em- 
phatic language  that  at  no  time  has  there  ever  been  any  attempt  or  even 
desire  on,  the  part  of  leading  authorities  referred  to  to  have  the  church 
in  any  manner  encroach  upon  the  rights  of  the  State,  or  to  unite  in  any 
degree  the  functions  of  the  one  with  those  of  the  other. 

There  is  really  no  occasion  for  "positive  and  emphatic  lan- 
guagc.'^  It  is  not  a  question  of  vehemence  or  asseveration,  but 
one  of  the  facts  and  the  philosophical  significance  of  those  facts 
—whether  they  are  in  their  nature  and  operation  an  infringement 
on  the  sphere  of  the  state.  It  is  not  a  question  for  which 
denial  or  affirmation  are  at  all  competent.     It  is  a  case  which 


76  THE   LATE    MANIFESTO    IN    POLITICS. 

turns  on  the  significance  of  facts,  just  as  the  legal  import  of  a 
document  is  determined  as  judicially  interpreted,  and  not  by  any 
amount  of  affirmation  as  to  what  the  document  signifies. 
Whether  the  "rights  of  the  priesthood,"  as  ^et  forth  in  this  mani- 
festo, are  in  conflict  with  the  rights  of  the  state,  is  to  be  decided, 
not  by  "positive  and  emphatic  language,''  but  by  an  examination 
of  Ihe  rights  and  principles  on  each  side,  and  by  critical  compari- 
son to  determine  whether  they  conflict  either  in  essence  or  in 
operation. 

AN  OBJECT  LESSON. 

12.  Peculiar  circumstances  have  surrounded  the  people  of  Utah.  For 
many  years  a  majority  of  them  in  every  portion  of  the  territory  belonged 
to  one  Church,  every  reputable  member  of  which  was  entitled  to  hold  and 
did  hold  some  ecclesiastical  oflBce.  It  is  easy  to  see  how,  to  the  casual 
observer,  it  might  appear  singular  that  so  many  officers  of  the  church 
were  also  officers  of  the  State;  but  while  this  was  in  fact  the  case,  the  dis- 
tinction between  church  and  Stat©  throughout  those  years  was  carefully 
maintained.  The  president  of  the  church  held  for  eight  years  the  highest 
civil  office  in  the  community,  having  been  appointed  by  the  national 
administration  governor  of  the  territory.  The  first  secretary  of  the  terri- 
tory was  a  prominent  church  official.  An  apostle  represented  the  territory 
in  Congress  as  a  delegate  during  ten  years.  The  members  of  the  Legis- 
lature also  held  offices  in  the  church.  This  was  unavoidable;  for  the 
most  suitable  men  were  elected  by  the  votes  of  the  people,  and,  as  we 
have  stated  every  reputable  man  in  the  entire  community  held  some 
church  position,  the  most  energetic  and  capable  holding  leading  positions. 
This  is  all  natural  and  plain  enough  to  those  who  consider  the  circum- 
stances; but  it  furnished  opportunity  for  those  who  were  disposed  to 
assail  the  people  of  the  territory  to  charge  them  with  attempting  to 
unite  church  and  Stato.  A  fair  investigation  of  the  conditions  will  abun- 
dantly disprove  the  charges  and  show  its  utter  falsity. 

During  the  period  described  the  more  important  offices  were 
appointive  rather  th^n  elective,  so  that  only  to  a  limited  degree 
would  office  holdinsf  came  under  the  supervision  of  counsel. 
When  the  People's  party  was  in  vogue,  everybody  knows,  and 
nobody  so  well  as  the  leaders,  that  the  policy  and  energy  and  all 
neces«;ary  manipulation  were  under  the  control  of  the  church 
authorities.  The  lamb  would  be  all  there,  but  it  would  be  inside 
tljc  lion.  It  might  be  said,  as  it  is  frequently  said  in  this  mani- 
festo, that  the  "distinction"  between  the  lamb  and  the  lion  was 
carefully  preserved.  It  might  be,  and  yet  the  lamb  might  be  in- 
sidt.  So  that  there  is  something  to  be  said  of  relation  as  well 
as  distinction.  If  the  state  is  inside  the  genius  and  power  of  the 
church,  as  in  papal  Rome;  or  i^  the  church  is  inside  the  state 
as  in  Russia;  in  either  case  the  relation  is  one  of  inclusion.  The 
true  rolatif  r  is  that  of  equality  and  independence. 


THE   MANIFESTO   EXAMINED.  77 

When  "every  reputable  member  was  entitied  to  hold  and  did 
1iold  some  ecclesiastical  office,"  and  all  offices  and  members  were 
tinder  priestly  counsel  as  to  all  the  affairs  of  life,  both  temporal 
and  s])iritual,  how  could  there  be  a  state  within  the  meaning  of 
the  Declaiation  of  Independence?  How  could  there  be  a  demo- 
cratic state  when  life  is  drawn  from  the  church  through  the  un- 
biblical  cord  of  counsel? 

It  used  to  be  a  question  for  debate,  whether  or  not  the  relation 
of  master  and  slave  is  sinful.  Some  attempted  to  settle  the 
questicm  by  proofs  as  to  usages  and  customs  of  antiquity,  whether 
Jew  or  Gentile;  but  it  remained  to  the  quickening  of  the  sensi- 
bilities, the  awakening  of  conscience  and  the  diffusion  of  the 
love  of  Christ  to  enable  mankind  to  perceive  that  the  slave  rela- 
ticn  is  in  itself  essentially  wrong,  abnormal  and  sinful.  In  like 
manner,  if  we  lift  aloft  the  charter  of  American  liberty,  and  men 
see  in  its  light  that  they  are  created  in  the  divine  image  and 
equally  endowed  with  the  rights  of  humanity,  superstition  and 
serfdom  fall  away,  independence  and  self-reliance  are  enthroned, 
and  the  state  absolves  itself  from  ecclesiastical  thralldom. 

No  need  to  say  above  that  because  there  were  so  many  church 
people  in  civil  offices  there  would  need  to  be  a  suspicion  of  union 
between  church  and  state.  The  only  question  is:  Were  they 
in  office  in  conformity  with  and  in  subordination  to  counsel?  If 
they  wert,  the  state  was  made  tributary  to  the  church. 

If  every  civil  officer  in  the  United  States  were  also  an  officer 
in  the  church,  that  fact  would  prove  nothing  in  regard  to  a 
union  of  church  and  state.  During  all  the  above  described  period 
wa^  counsel  given  as  to  who  should,  and  who  should  not,  hold 
office  ?  It  ought  to  be  clear  that  so  far  as  civil  affairs  are  shaped 
and  governed  by  the  counsel  of  the  church  there  is  an  absorption 
of  the  state  by  the  ruling  authorities. 

RENEWED  ASSURANCES     AS     TO     NON-INTERVEN- 
TION IN  THE  STATE. 

13.  On  behalf  of  the  Church  of  which  we  are  leading  oflScials,  we  de- 
sire again  to  state  to  the  members  and  also  to  the  pubUc  generally,  that 
there  has  not  been,  nor  is  there,  the  remotest  desire  on  our  part  or  on  the 
part  of  our  coreligionists  to  do  anything  looking  to  a  union  of  church  and 
state. 

In  this  paragraph  "the  public  generally"  is  taken  into  con- 
sideration and  assured  by  the  church  that  there  is  no  desire, 
even  tlie  remotest  "to  do  anything  looking  to  a  union  of  church 
and  state."     As  remarked  under  the  Eleventh  paragraph,  "this 


78  THE   LATE   MANIFESTO   IN    POLITICS. 

is  not  a  question  wherein  any  amount  of  affirmation,  however 
positive  and^emphatic,  is  a  means  of  solution."  It  depends  upon 
the  meaning-  of  facts  and  conditions. 

INDIVIDUAL  LIBERTY. 

14.  We  declare  that  there  has  never  been  any  attempt  to  curtail  in- 
dividual liberty — the  personal  liberty  of  any  of  the  officers  or  members  of 
the  Church. 

Ihere  might  be  no  desire  or  attempt  to  "curtail"  or  diminish 
or  repress  individual  liberty,  yet  there  might  at  the  same  time 
be  a  desire  and  a  purpose  to  mould  and  redirect  that  individual 
libert\^  by  methods  and  influences  that  might  be  either  proper  or 
improp(  r  If  a  man  is  convinced  of  the  truth  of  a  mathematical 
economic,  or  industrial  problem  by  a  demonstration  or  explana- 
tion that  lies  within  the  sphere  of  that  problem,  no  difiference 
who  furnishes  the  proof,  whether  his  priest  or  his  school  teacher, 
it  is  all  right.  But  if  a  priest,  because  of  his  priestly  authority^ 
were  to  dictate  to  a  man  in  mathematics,  economy  or  politics 
without  furnishing  appropriate  reasons  to  appeal  to  the  man's 
understanding,  there  would  be  a  wrong  done  the  man's  intelli- 
gence and  individual  liberty.  His  liberty  would  not  be  "cur- 
tailed," but  it  would  be  directed  and  controlled  by  wrong 
methods. 

A  mati  might  have  a  firm  determination  to  pursue  a  certain 
C'jurse;  and  he  might,  by  means  of  proper  advice  and  enlighten- 
ment resolve  upon  the  opposite  course  and  pursue  that  as  ear- 
nestly as  he  would  the  first  determined  upon.  It  is  the  purpose 
of  the  Christian  gospel  to  change  every  man's  mind  from  deter- 
iriination>  that  are  wrong  to  those  that  are  in  harmony  with  his 
Letter  lature  and  with  the  right  and  true  everywhere.  A  man 
thus  changed  is  under  law,  but  it  is  "the  law  of  liberty;"  for  obe- 
dience i-nder  this  law  springs  from  a  soul  inspired  with  the  uni- 
versal hamicny.  His  individual  liberty  is  not  "curtailed"  but 
renewed  and  redirected  by  right  methods. 

If  the  "chief  authorities"  were  to  publish  books  setting  forth 
the  facts  of  history  and  the  principles  of  government,  and  such 
books  were  circulated  among  the  Mormon  people  thereby  de- 
termining to  a  considerable  extent  their  political  status  and 
action;  there  would  in  such  case  be  no  infringement  upon  indi- 
vidual liberty  or  the  state,  if  the  literature  sent  out  were  true, 
if  no  dictation  or  preference  were  indicated,  and  if  the  people 
received  it  purely  on  its  merits  and  with  no  coloring  of  priestly 
authority  accompanying  it.     That  is,  if  men's  minds  were  left 


THE   MANIFESTO   EXAMINED.  79 

free  from  any  influence,  other  than  that  of  scientific  truths  and 
principles,  it  would  be  all  right;  the  people  would  be  left  free 
to  judge  and  act  under  the  operation  of  "the  law  of  liberty"  as 
revealed  to  them  by  the  light  of  history  and  governmental 
science. 

But  if  the  people  should  receive  such  books  under  a  species  of 
priestly  glamour;  and  if,  because  they  came  from  the  chief  au- 
thorities, the  people  believed  they  must  be  infallibly  inspired 
and  di\inely  authoritative — in  such  cases  the  people  would  be 
brought  into  bondage.  There  would  be  no  apprehension  of  "the 
law  of  liberty."  There  would  be  blind  fealty  to  a  fetish,  the 
sen'itude  of  ignorance,  bigotry  and  superstition. 

Hence  the  "chief  authorities"  should  realize  what  a  delicate 
and  responsible  position  they  occupy  in  relation  to  that  large 
number  of  people  who  regard  their  utterances  as  inspired,  and 
who  would  think  it  irreverent  and  sinful  to  doubt  or  question 
anything  coming  from  the  head  of  the  church.  They  stand 
ready  to  surrender  their  judgment  and  individual  independence, 
and  thus  they  would  put  themselves  beyond  the  pale  of  "the  law 
of  liberty.'* 

Thre  are  few  men  living,  possibly  none,  who  are  entitled  to 
more  regard  for  earnestness  and  integrity  than  Wilford  Wood- 
ruff. Yet,  if  Wilford  Woodruff  were  to  go  out  upon  the  street 
on  electi'-  n  day  in  the  earlier  part  of  the  day,  and  in  the  presence 
of  multitudes  cast  his  vote  in  a  way  that  would  seem  open,  spec- 
tacular and  demonstrative;  and  if  the  fact  of  his  voting  in  such  a 
way  and  with  such  a  party  were  telegraphed  all  over  the  state; 
and  if  the  incident  as  telegraphed  were  used  at  many  polling 
places  during  the  remainder  of  the  day  and  voters  were  thereby 
induced  to  cast  their  votes  in  the  same  way — ^why,  a  great  wrong 
would  be  done,  the  state  would  be  encroached  upon,  religion 
and  priesthood  would  be  made  the  means  of  superstitious  en- 
thralln»ent 

Sure!;  a  great  and  difficult  work  is  laid  at  the  door  of  the 
chief  authorities  to  divest  themselves  and  disclaim  a  homage 
from  zealous  followers  which  in  its  very  essence  is  inimical  to 
American  institutions. 

EXPLANATIONS  CONCERNING  COUNSEL. 

15.  The  First  Presidency  and  other  leading  oflBcers  did  make  certain 
suggestions  to  the  people  when  the  division  on  party  lines  took  place. 

"The  first  presidency  and  other  leading  officers:" — Whatever 
they  said  or  did,  it  would  be  taken  by  "the  people"  as  coming  to 


80  THE   LATE   MANIFESTO   IN    POLITICS. 

them  with  all  the  insignia  and  credentials  of  authority  and  inspi- 
ration.   They  would  be  largely  bound  and  guided  by  it. 

They  "did  make  certain  suggestions.'*'  As  to  whether  right  or 
wrong,  those  "suggestions"  would  depend  on  what  they  were. 
About  the  only  kind  of  "suggestions"  that  could  be  rightly  made 
would  be  concerning  the  nature  of  government,  the  duty  of  the 
pe  ;ple  to  become  faithful,  true  and  competent  citizens,  the  im- 
portance of  understanding  all  questions  of  government,  the  neces- 
sity of  independence  and  self-reliance;  and  above  all,  the  first 
presidency  should  lay  the  foundation  stone  of  American  citizen- 
ship in  the  minds  of  "the  people"  by  reminding  them  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence — a  flash  of  inspiration  and  true 
manhccd  from  the  very  throne  of  God  himself — that  men  are 
by  God  created  free  and  equal;  that  they  are  divinely  endowed 
with  inalienable  rights  of  life,  liberty  and  happiness;  that  they 
must  stand  up  in  their  own  manhood  and  refuse  to  bow  their 
heads  to  kings  or  priests;  that  they  must  be  sovereigns  in  their 
own  right;  that  they  must  render  unto  Caesar  the  things  that 
are  Caesar's;  that  henceforth  the  spheres  of  church  and  state 
should  be  kept  separate.  But  did  the  first  presidency  make  such 
suggestions  as  these? 

It  was  at  the  time  "when  the  division  on  party  lines  took  place" 
that  "certain  suggestions"  were  made,  presumably  in  order  to 
shape  tlie  division.  If  there  were  any  biases  or  party  preferences 
in  the  mijids  of  the  first  presidency  they  will,  to  some  extent  at 
least,  appeal*  in  the  sequel! 

NEW  WINE  IN  OLD  BOTTLES. 
16.    That  movement  was  an  entirely  new  departure. 

Here  is  a  very  significant  concession — ^that  division  into 
parties  and  independent  action  as  citizens  "was  an  entirely  new 
departure."  There  had  been  voting  and  other  party  action  at 
Nauvoo;  but  there  was  no  division  into  independent  parties 
there ;  it  was  run  by  "counsel"  as  it  was  under  the  People^s  party 
regime  in  Utah.  There  was  a  long  period  of  office  holding  in 
Utah  as  set  out  in  the  foregoing  section;  but  there  was  no 
division  en  national  party  lines.  It  was  all  done  under  the  dic- 
tates of  church  counsel.  Now  comes  a  new  state  of  things,  a 
"new  departure."  There  is  a  new  wine  for  the  people.  Will  it  be 
put  into  new  bottles?  Will  there  be  new  rules  and  regulations? 
Or  will  the  old  bottles — the  old  rules  and  regulations  of  "coun- 
sels—be patched  up  for  the  new  state  of  Utah?    A  study  of  the 


THE  MANIFESTO  EXAMINED.  81 

inanifesto  reveals  the  fact  that  old  bottles  and  old  customs  and 
usages  are  to  hold  the  new  wine  of  Utah  statehood. 

A  QUESTION  OF  MOTIVE. 

17.  And  it  was  necessary  in  order  that  the  full  benefit  should  not  be 
lost  which  was  hoped  to  result  from  this  new  political  division,  that  people 
who  were  inexperienced  should  be  warned  against  hasty  and  ill-considered 
action. 

That  "fi:ll  benefit"  was  statehood  containing  by  implication 
many  other  things  that  were  regarded  as  beneficial.  Hence  we 
have  a  clue  to  the  procedure  of  certain  officials  who  went  about 
dividing  the  people  into  parties,  saying — "Zion  wants  your 
votes,"  *'Zion  wants  statehood."  We  find  that  the  people  were 
about  equally  divided  between  the  Democratic  and  Republican 
panics;  and  it  would  look  a  little  strange,  after  the  visit  of 
one  of  the  "dividing  officials"  to  a  town  to  see  the  next  day 
some  *''unterrified"  sage  brush  Democrat  posing  as  a  genuine  Re- 
publican. And  as  late  as  October,  1895,  several  minor  officials 
gave  out  to  near  friends  that  they  belonged  to  the  "reserve 
corps,"  supposed  to  be  a  convenient  means  of  holding  the  bal- 
ance of  power  between  the  parties. 

Beneath  the  politics  of  the  national  parties  there  was  a  state- 
hood p.»  itics,  covering  certain  maneuvering  in  order  to  attain 
the  "full  benefit."  This  statehood  politics  called  for  the  equaliz- 
ing of  parties;  hence  the  counseling  of  some  officials  to  go  out 
and  speak  to  the  people;  and  the  counseling  of  other  officials 
to  stay  at  home  and  keep  silent;  hence  the  bargaining  with  party 
managers  abroad,  in  short  there  were  a  thousand  things  included 
in  this  statehood  project  that  could  not  have  come  down  from 
that  "Son  of  God''  whose  name  is  so  often  used  to  give  sanction 
to  the  wily  schemes  of  man. 

If  the  motive  had  been  to  enlighten  the  people  thoroughly;  to 
promote  the  spread  of  true  political  knowledge;  to  qualify  men 
and  womern  for  self  government  and  useful  citizenship — if  such 
had  been  the  motive  set  out  in  the  manifesto,  we  could  but  re- 
gard it  as  worthy  of  the  church,  or  of  Qirist  himself. 

Whatever  the  "full  benefit,"  it  was  necessary  in  order  to  its 
attainment  "that  people  who  were  inexperienced  should  be  warn- 
ed against  hasty  and  ill  considered  action."  Here  we  see  no 
referen-^e  to  instilling  principles  into  their  minds  in  order  that 
they  might  be  rightiy  guided.  All  that  is  told  us  suggests  that 
the  people  were  to  be  marched  about  and  generaled  into  the 
accomph^hment  of  some  plan  or  scheme  of  priestiy  counsel.    The 


82  THE    LATE   MANIFESTO   IN    POLITICS. 

iinst  presidency  seem  to  be  considering  actions  and  results  to  be 
gained  and  controlled  directly,  rather  than  the  political  and  civil 
enlightenment  of  the  mind  whereby  alone  the  true  results  in 
action  sIk  uld  be  sought  to  be  attained. 

OPERATIONS  OF  COUNSEL. 

18.  In  some  cases  they  were  counseled  to  be  wise  and  prudent  in  the 
political  steps  they  were  about  to  take,  and  this  with  no  idea  of  winning 
them  against  their  will  to  either  side. 

"Counseled  to  be  wise  and  prudent"  Does  thisi  mean,  coun- 
seled (tha*  they  ought)  to  be  wise  and  prudent;  or  counseled 
(so  as)  to  be  wise  and  prudent?  Probably  the  latter;  for  it  would 
avail  but  little  to  tell  people  to  be  wise  and  prudent  without 
giving  them  a  knowledge  of  what  would  be  wisdom  and  pru- 
dence under  the  circumstances.  As  the  "full  benefit^'  was  state- 
h*"  1  d  and  what  appertained  thereto,  we  may  well  suppose  that 
^'tc  be  wise  and  prudenf'  included  a  disclosure  of  the  "political 
steps"  that  would  lead  up  to  that  consummation. 

"With  no  idea  (purpose)  of  winning  them  against  their  will  to 
either  side."  No,  it  is  not  the  nature  of  counsel  to  win  a  per- 
son against  the  will;  rather  does  it  operate  to  convince  the  will, 
remove  objections,  and  thus  with'  the  consent  of  the  will  direct 
their  political  steps,  or  their  movements  in  any  other  depart- 
ment of  life. 

In  the  foregoing  sentence,  number  17,  the  "inexperienced" 
were  counseled  against  "hasty  and  ill  considered  action."  In 
the  sentence  under  consideration,  "in  some  cases,"  they  were 
counseled  "to  be  wise  and  prudent."  Why  not  in  both  cases? 
Does  noi  wisdom  and  prudence  answer  the  purpose  precisely  to 
counteract  "hasty  and  ill  considered  action?"  From  what  follows 
it  will  be  more  clearly  seen  that  the  writer  of  the  manifesto  has 
unconsciously  written  a  good  deal  between  the  lines;  and  "to 
be  v/ise  and  prudent"  in  this  passage  means  to  be  wise  in  plan- 
ning methods  to  achieve  statehood. 

As  it  afterwards  turned  out,  statehood  would  have  been  more 
easily  secured,  if  there  had  been  no  plans  or  schemes  forced  upon 
the  pc  jple.  They  were  counseled  "to  be  wise  and  prudent," 
and  they  were  required  to  do  certain  things;  but  if  no  counsel 
whatever  had  been  given  and  the  people  had  been  left  to  their 
own  judgment  and  inclination,  statehood  would  have  been  more 
promptly  secured.  For  while  the  incidents  referred  to  in  the 
manifesto  were  happening  in  1890-91,  there  was  a  great  over- 
turning of  parties  in  1892.     The  president  and  congress     were 


THE   MANIFESTO   EXAMINED.  83 

changed  from  one  side  of  politics  to  the  other.  And  if  Utah 
had  not  been  thrown  into  a  different  political  relation  she  would 
have  bfen  in  harmony  with  president  and  congress  in  1893,  and 
statehood  would  have  come  more  promptly  than  it  finally  did. 

One  leading  brother  announced  at  Paris,  Idaho,  that  he  had 
receiveo  a  political  prophecy.  He  had  it  by  a  revelation.,  he 
claimed,  that  Cleveland  would  never  be  president  of  the  United 
States  again,  although  nominated  at  that  time.  Of  course  he 
wa-  mi^aken;  but  the  matter  that  concerns  us  here  is  the  tendency 
at  that  time  to  construe  the  counsel  of  certain  leaders  as  being  in- 
spired, and  the  inclination  to  get  supplementary  inspirations  to 
aid  the  leaders  in  controlling  the  political  action  of  the  people. 
It  is  a  matter  of  congratulation  that  statehood  was  attained; 
but  it  did  not  need  that  the  means  and  plans  "suggested"  by 
counsel  should  have  been  adopted,  or  even  thought  of. 

TO  THE  LAW  AND  THE  TESTIMONY. 

19.  To  this  extent,  and  no  further,  was  anything  said  or  done  upon 
this  question,  and  at  no  time  and  under  no  ciacumstances  was  any  attempt 
made  to  say  to  voters  how  they  should  cast  their  ballots.  Any  charge  that 
has  been  made  to  the  contrary  is  utterly  false. 

It  would  be  foreign  to  the  purpose  of  this  memorial  to  discuss 
what  might  be  termed  "statehood  politics,"  were  it  not  that  the 
whole  matter  obtains  a  certain  degree  of  importance  in  relation 
to  the  political  character  and  conduct  of  Moses  Thatcher.  It  was 
widely  known  that  he  was  not  in  harmony  v^th  some  of  his 
brethren  in  relation  to  the  policy  to  be  pursued,  and  that  was 
fmally  decided  upon  by  superior  authority.  Only  those  who 
were  fully  advised  could  have  located  the  trouble;  but  enough 
was  generally  known  to  mitigate  the  surprise  awakened  in  the 
public  mind  by  the  disclosures  made  in  the  Salt  Lake  Tribune 
of  May  10  concerning  the  priesthood  meeting  at  Logan.  It  may 
be  remarked  here  that  the  report  is  substantially  correct,  and  in 
very  many  cases  the  exact  words  are  used: 

"Joseph  F.  Smith  was  the  next  speaker.  He  said  that  Moses 
Thatcher's  attitude  all  through  the  political  fight  in  Utah  could 
not  be  justified;  that  he  had  been  the  one  apostle  who  had  refused 
to  take  counsel  as  to  how  the  people  should  be  divided  up;  that 
the  first  presidency  and  all  the  twelve  but  Thatcher  had  decided 
upon  a  ceitain  policy  to  get  the  relief  they  needed  from  the  gov- 
ernment; but  Tliatcher  had  stood  out  against  them;  that  he  had 
been  opposing  his  brethren  ever  since  the  division  on  party  lines, 
and  had  not  been  in  harmony  with  his  quorum." 

Joseph  F.  said  further  that  the  meeting  called  in  the  Gardo 
ou.«e  to  consider  the  advisability  of  disbanding  the     People's 


84  THE   LATE   MANIFESTO   IN   POLITICS. 

party  was  attended  by  many  of  the  authorities,  stake  presidents 
and  leaders  of  the  People's  party. 

It  was  plainly  stated  at  this  meeting  that  men  in  high  author- 
ity who  believed  in  Republican  principles  should  go  out  among 
the  people,  but  that  those  in  high  authority  who  could  not  in- 
dorse the  principles  of  Republicanism  should  remain  silent.  Their 
counsel  was  obeyed  by  all  the  apostles  and  high  authorities  ex- 
cept .Closes  Thatcher,  who  talked  to  the  people  contrary  to  the 
wishes  ()f  his  brethren.  If  it  had  not  been  for  his  condition, 
Moses  Tliatcher  would  have  been  called  to  account  for  his  dec- 
laration in  the  opera  house,  (here  giving  Thatcher's  declaration 
of  political  independence),  but  if  he  ever  became  able  he  would 
have  tr)  answer  for  that  as  well  as  other  things  they  proposed  to 
charge  against  him. 

"An.l  I  want  to  tell  you  now,"  said  Joseph  F.,  "that  Moses 
Thatcher  was  only  admitted  to  the  dedication  of  the  Salt  Lake 
temple  after  long  hesitation;  he  only  got  in  'by  the  skin  of  his 
teeth.''  The  speaker  said  that  the  only  concession  Moses  That- 
cher ever  had  made  was  that  he  would  always  submit  to  the  will 
of  the  majority,  but  would  not  admit  that  he  was  wrong,  al- 
though all  his  brethren  voted  against  him. 

Right  here  George  W.  Thatcher  interrupted  Joseph  F.  to  say: 

''Brother  Joseph,  will  vou  allow  me  to  make  a  statement?" 

The  permission  was  granted  and  George  W.  Thatcher  said: 

"My  brother  is  very  sick,  and  it  does  not  seem  right  to  make 
these  charges  against  him  behind  his  back.  I  have  no  knowledge 
of  these  matters,  and  cannot  defend  him  against  you;  but  I  love 
my  brother  and  do  not  like  to  have  him  treated  this  way." 

Joseph  F.  continued  by  saying  that  he,  too,  loved  Moses 
Thatcher,  and  wouldn't  have  taken  the  matter  up  if  Heber  J. 
hadn't  started  it. 

George  W.  Thatcher  then  asked  Joseph  F.  if  he  meant  to  say 
that  Mr.ses  Thatcher  was  at  the  meeting  in  the  Gardo  House 
referred  to,  and  the  answer  was: 

"Yes,  T  am.  positive,  and  I  have  related  exactly  what  took  place 
at  that  meeting." 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  assure  the  readers  of  this  memorial 
that  Moses  Thatcher  was  not  in  attendance  at  that  Gardo  house 
meeting,  but  he  is,  nevertheless,  under  the  ban  of  some  of  his 
brethren  for  his  disregard  of  certain  proposed  "counsel"  in  rela- 
tion to  what  they  supposed  to  be  his  political  duty. 

And  now  the  question  arises:  Was  not  Moses  Thatcher 
wholly  justifiable  in  the  course  that  he  chose  to  pursue?  Will  not 
historv  justify  him?  Will  not  men  honor  him  for  his  indepen- 
dence** Will  not  God  approve  his  fidelity  and  integrity?  To 
ask  such  questions  is  to  answer  them.  And  even  with  respect 
to  statehood,  his  course  promised  speedier  success;  for  soon 
after  that  time  the  president  and  congress  became  Democratic. 
But  it  is  not  as  a  mere  makeshift  that  the  question  must  be 


THE    MANIFESTO   PIXAMINED.  85 

jtidged,  bat  as  a  matter  of  principle  and  right.     Mr.  Thatcher 
ti  ok  tht.  right  ground  in  the  sight  of  God  and  his-  countrymen 

HOW  ABOUT  CHURCH  AND  STATE? 

Suppose  the  pubhshed  report  of  the  high  council  meeting  at 
Logan  is  substantialiy  correct  as  to  the  language  ascribed  to  the 
several  spiakers;  suppose  the  "division"  was  accomplished  about 
as  described — that  certain  men  w^ere  counseled  to  go  out  and 
speak  arid  organize,  and  that  certain  other  men  were  counseled 
to  stay  at  home  and  hold  their  peace;  suppose  the  parties  were 
put  into  array  in  conformity  with  arrangements  entered  into 
between  the  "authorities"  and  certain  prominent  politicians;  sup- 
pose statehood  were  secured  by  carrying  out  such  a  program; — 
what  shcnild  our  judgment  be  as  to  the  leading  authorities  en- 
croaching upon  the  sphere  of  the  state? 

Of  C(.iirse  it  might  be  said  that  by  all  such  means  certain 
leaders  were  counseled  so  as  "to  be  wise  and  prudent;"  but  is 
this  the  wisdom  that  comes  from  above,  from  "the  Father  of 
Lights  with  whom  there  is  neither  variableness  or  shadow  of 
turning^"  To  send  out  men  for  one  side  to  speak  and  organize, 
and  keep  the  leaders  of  the  opposite  side  at  hime,  is  to  play  the 
game  with  loaded  dice.  How  does  such  a  procedure  dififer  in 
rn«>ral  quality  from  the  simple  ordering  up  of  a  majority  for 
either  party  as  the  circumstances  required?  If  these  things  were 
dent  as  narrated  at  Logan,  or  in  any  other  way  that  produced 
the  same  result  by  means  of  "counsel,"  how  can  the  authoritie? 
escape  th<  judgment  of  mankind  that  they  have  trespassed,  in 
no  very  exalted  way,  upon  the  sphere  of  the  state? 

BEGETTING  A  STATE. 

20.  Concerning  officers  of  the  Church  themselves,  the  feeling  was 
generally  expressed  in  the  beginning  of  the  political  division  spoken  of 
that  it  would  be  prudent  for  leading  men  not  to  accept  of  office  at  the 
hands  of  the  political  party  to  which  they  might  belong.  This  counsel 
was  given  to  men  of  both  parties  alike — not  because  it  was  thought  that 
there  was  any  impropriety  in  religious  men  holding  civil  office,  nor  to  de- 
prive them  of  any  of  the  rights  of  citizenphip,  but  because  of  the  feeling 
that  it  would  be  better  under  all  the  circumstances  which  had  now  arisen 
to  avoid  any  action  that  would  be  likely  to  create  jealousy  and  ill-feeling. 

"Concerning  officers  themselves."  In  foregoing  paragraphs 
the  manifesto  has  been  speaking  with  reference  to  the  people  at 
large  as  led  about  and  divided  into  parties  by  the  chief  officials. 
Here  thev  deal  with  "officers  themselves." 


Sb  THE   LATE   MANIFESTO   IN    POLITICS. 

And  why  must  officers  in  the  church  abstain  from  holding" 
office  in  the  state?  Note  that  the  time  here  indicated  is  about 
1890.  In  a  former  lengthy  paragraph,  number  12,  we  are  told 
concemirg;  a  period  of  near  40  years,  during  which  the  people 
of  Utah  enjoyed  a  tranquil  reign  of  church  officials  without  hav- 
ing in  the  least  degree  obliterated  or  trespassed  upon  "the  dis- 
tinction betw^een  church  and  state." 

Why  should  there  be  a  feeling  in  the  beginning  of  the  politi- 
cal divisicn  spoken  of  that  it  would  be  prudent  for  leading  men 
not  to  accept  office  at  the  hands  of  the  political  party  to  which 
they  might  belong?"  Why  should  it  "create  jealousy  and  ill 
feeling?"  Why  was  "this  counsel  given"  at  this  particular  time 
"to  men  of  both  parties  alike?" 

There  is  a  very  good  and  sufficient  reason  between  the  lines 
for  all  this: — During  all  the  long*  period  of  forty  years  before 
mentioned,  there  was  the  church;  and  within  its  counsel  was  the 
semblance  of  a  state;  but  so  far  as  it  was  a  state  by  Mormon 
votes,  it  drew  its  life  from  the  guidance  and  authority  of  the 
priesthood.  Tne  people  knew  this.  They  knew  that  in  a  gen- 
eral way  they  votfed  for  whomsoever  the  church  wished  elected. 

Now  that  the  Mormon  people  were  to  be  divided  up  with  the 
Gentiles  into  parties,  they  could  not  very  well  decide  between 
church  officials,  many  of  whom  had  previously  been  in  the  habit 
of  dictating  to  them  as  members  of  the  People's  party.  They 
had  formerly  looked  upon  the  dictation  of  each  one  of  the  chief 
officials  as  inspired.  Now  they  would  have  to  decide  between 
the  leadmg  authorities  and  they  would  even  have  to  consider 
the  attitude  of  the  first  presidency.  Here  was  indeed  a  chance 
for  confusion,  jealousy  and  ill  feeling! 

The  "counsel"  is  now  given  to  the  effect  that  the  chief  offi- 
cers gc  back  on  the  precedents  that  have  guided  them  for  forty 
years,  and  keep  out  of  politics.  This  was  probably  good  coun- 
sel under  the  circumstances.  "Let  all  the  chiefs  who  have  been 
in  the  habit  of  dictating  to  the  people,  now  abstain  from  be- 
coming political  leaders,  so  that  the  chosen  people  shall  not 
become  confused  in  the  matter  of  priestly  authority. 

A  far  better  way — a  truer,  nobler,  more  American  way — a  way 
more  in  accord  with  the  Declaration  of  Independence — was  that 
pursued  by  Moses  Thatcher;  to  let  the  people  go  free  in  political 
matters:  to  absolve  them  from  all  dictation  and  counsel;  to  let 
the  state  alone,  as  we  allow  the  moon  to  freely  move  in  her 
orbii;  to  let  every  Mormon  brother  stand  up  in  his  own  man- 
hood and  God-given  right  as  an  American  citizen. 


THE   MANIFESTO   EXAMINED.  87 

A  STATEHOOD   GLAMOUR. 

21.  An  era  of  peace  and  good  will  seemed  to  be  dawning  upon  the 
people,  and  it  was  deemed  good  to  shun  everything  that  could  have  the 
least  tendency  to  prevent  the  consummation  of  this  happy  prospect. 

'*The  consummation!"  Not  that  the  world  was  about  to  end; 
but  the  struggle  of  half  a  century  would  culminate  in  statehood, 
and  Zion  would  be  enlarged.  The  meaning  is  that  the  leader- 
ship of  high  church  oiftcials  in  politics  would  be  likely  to  work 
confusion.,  and  as  a  consequence  prevent  the  "consummation," 
the  "full  benefit."  At  first,  all  such  officials  were  counseled  to 
abstain  from  political  leadership.  This  counsel  was  to  be  good 
up  to  the  attainment  of  statehood.  The  next  regulation  is  that 
all  must  be  guided  by  counsel  as  to  matters  of  state.  This  rule 
puts  charch  officers — and  all  are  officers— back  into  the  People^s 
pany  regime.  The  index  on  the  dial  of  liberty  is  put  back  forty 
}'ears ! 

WEAKNESS  AND  DIVIDED  COUNSELS. 

22.  In  many  instances,  however,  the  pressure  brought  to  bear  upon 
efficient  and  popular  men  by  the  members  of  the  p  irty  to  which  they  be- 
longed was  of  such  a  character  that  they  had  to  yield  to  the  solicitation  to 
accept  nomination  to  office,  or  subject  themselves  to  the  suspicion  of  bad 
faith  in  their  party  affiliations. 

No,  that  was  not  the  true  reason.  There  had  been  a  rule  made 
that  "all  the  leading  authorities  should  keep  out  of  politics." 
Now,  i^  the  chief  authorities  had  themselves  firmly  adhered  to 
the  rr.k,  and  had  set  an  example  of  faithfulness  and  consistency, 
there  w  uld  have  been  no  trouble  whatever.  No  "solicitations" 
to  recive  nominations  would  have  been  a  temptation. 

After  the  rule  was  made,  there  was  "counsel"  given  that  was 
in  violation  of  the  rule.  One  side  in  politics  was  counseled  to 
go  out  to  the  people  and  promote  that  side;  and  the  other  side 
in  politics  was  "counseled"  to   stay  at  home  and  keep   silent. 

WTicn  a  rule  is  made  by  a  certain  authority,  and  by  the  same 
authority  the  rule  is  changed  so  as  to  apply  to  only  one-half  of 
the  people  subject  to  the  rule,  by  all  the  dictates  of  right  reason 
the  rule  is  nullified.  Otherwise  there  could  be  no  government, 
no  administration  of  justice.  Whoever  should  be  dealt  with  in 
this  way  would  know  that  his  rights  as  an  American  citizen  were 
trifled  with. 

It  would  have  been  better  to  have  discarded  all  political  con- 
trol over  the  people  and  let  them  go  absolutely  free;  but  when 
it  v-as  resolved  to  promote  one  side,  this  would  in  honor  release 
the  other  side;  and  any  free  man  would  resent  restraint  imposed 
by  a  partial  and   inequitable  rule. 


88  THE   LATE   MANIFESTO   IN   POLITICS. 

CONFLICTING  COUNSELS. 

23.  In  some  cases  they  did  this  without  consulting  the  authorities  of 
the  church;  but  where  important  positions  were  held,  and  where  the 
duties  were  of  a  responsible  character,  some  did  seek  the  counsel  and  ad- 
vice of  the  leading  church  authorities  before  accepting  the  political  honors 
tendered  them. 

Note  thai  in  the  beginning  of  the  division  movement,  as 
stated  above  in  section  20,  the  chief  officials  were  prohibited 
from  accepting  civil  offices  because  of  the  likelihood  of  arousing 
''jealousies  and  ill  feeling,"  and  also  for  fear  of  imperilling  the 
"consuniT-'alion."  But  in  this  section  some  did  seek  counsel 
and  some  did  not.  Now  how  could  it  have  a  tendency  to  allay 
"ill  feelirg"  and  disarm  "jealousies"  to  know  that  any  leading 
official  had  not  only  gone  into  politics,  but  had  been  instructed 
by  counsel  to  go  into  politics.  The  fact  is,  it  would  have  the 
contrary  effect,"  and  it  actually  did  have  that  effect;  for  time 
and  again  individuals  and  committees  appeared  before  the  first 
presidency  and  complained  of  their  unfairness  in  allowing  certain 
men  to  go  into  politics  to  the  exclusion  of  others. 

Here  it  is  that  "counsel"  seems  to  disregard  its  own  policy. 
For,  it  was  stated  a  few  lines  above  that  for  certain  reasons^ — 
"jealousy  and  ill  feeling'' — leading  men  were  to  abstain  from 
civil  office.  In  this  section  all  that  seems  to  have  been  required 
was  the  seeking  of  "counsel,"  and  counsel  being  obtained  they 
wert-  ushered  into  politics  notwithstanding  "jealousy  and  ill 
ff^eling." 

The  whole  procedure  is  confused  and  conflicting.  It  is  utterly 
impossible  to  gather  any  consitency  or  uniformity  out  of  it. 
"When  important  positions  were  held,  some  did  seek  counsel 
befce  accepting,  etc."  They  sought  counsel,  and  according  to 
the  rule  laid  down  above,  they  ought  to  have  been  forbidden 
th<  privilege;  but  they  were  elected;  and  the  meaning  between 
tlie  lines  is  that  they  were  helped  into  their  position  because 
they  did  seek  counsel.  All  this  is  crooked  and  confused;  it  indi- 
cates n(  system  and  uniformity;  and  it  can  but  be  looked  upon  as 
reprehensible. 

WITHOUT  COMPASS  OR  RUDDER. 

24.  Because  some  others  did  not  seek  this  counsel  and  advice,  ill-feel- 
ing was  engendered  and  undue  and  painful  sensitiveness  was  stimulated; 
misunderstanding  readily  followed,  and  as  a  result  the  authorities  of  the 
Church  were  accused  of  bad  faith  and  made  the  subjects  of  bitter  re- 
proach. 


THE   MANIFESTO   EXAMINED.  89 

The  writer  is  very  much  confused  at  this  point.  He  is  speak- 
ing' of  things  connected  with  the  "division  movement."  The  rea- 
son given  "for  leading  men  not  to  accept  office"  was  to  "avoid 
any  acti  »n  that  would  be  likely  to  create  jealousy  and  ill  feeling." 
Here  we  find  the  writer  complaining  that  "ill  feeling  was  engen- 
dered because  some  others  did  not  seek  this  counsel  and  ad- 
vice.'^ This  is  not  stating  it  consistently  with  what  precedes.  The 
counsel  was  given  generally  that  all  the  leaders  should  stay  out 
of  politics.  See  above: — "This  counsel  was  given  to  men  of 
both  parties-  alike."  All  must  keep  out.  What  is  the  trouble 
then?  It  should  be  stated  thus:  "Counsel  was  given  and  a  rule 
made  that  all  leaders  should  stay  out  of  politics.  Subsequently  a 
different  plan  was  adopted.  It  was  thought  best  to  favor  a  cer- 
tain party,  and  the  leaders  that  were  favorable  to  that  party 
vv^ere  allowed  to  go  out,  and  those  that  were  not  favorable  to 
that  party  were  counseled  to  stay  at  home.  Some  men  that  felt 
independent  claimed  that  the  original  rule  was  nullified  and  that 
tlie  whok  plan  was  vitiated  by  partial,  discriminating  and  con- 
flicting counsels."  Of  course  there  might  be  ill  feeling;  but  it 
would  be  because  of  divided  counsels. 

A  REVISED  EDITION. 

25.  We  have  maintained  that  in  the  case  of  men  who  hold  high  posi- 
tions in  the  church,  whose  duties  are  well  defined,  and  whose  ecclesiastical 
labors  are  understood  to  be  continuous  and  necessary,  it  would  be  an  im- 
proper thing  to  accept  political  office  or  enter  into  any  vocation  that  would 
distract  or  remove  them  from  the  religious  duties  resting  upon  them> 
without  first  consulting  and  obtaining  the  approval  of  their  associates  and 
those  who  preside  over  them. 

"AVe  have  maintained."  When?  How  long  previously  was 
the  dc'ctrine  of  submission  and  obedience  put  into  this  form? 
At  the  time  of  the  "division"  other  reasons  prevailed — the  like- 
lihood ci  "jealousies  and  ill  feeling."  Later  on  things  went  hap- 
hazard and  a  great  partisan  movement  was  inaugurated.  There 
were  divided  counsels,  insubordination  and  ill-feeling.  Previous 
to  "division,"  and  throughout  the  long  reign  of  the  People's 
party,  all  faithful  Mormons  were,  as  a  matter  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice, subject  to  the  chief  leadership.  They  sought  authoritative 
guidance  in  all  the  affairs  of  life,  temporal  and  spiritual. 

And  when  did  the  authors  of  the  manifesto  begin  to  put  the 
doctrine  of  subordination  and  counsel  in  the  precise  form  above 
stated?  Never  before  did  they  claim  that  the  duty  of  seeking 
counsel  depended  on  the  obligations  and  responsibilities  involved 
in  an  office.     The  duty  had  always  rested,  upon  the  relation  of 


90  THE   LATE   MANIFESTO   IN    POLITICS. 

subordinaTion  to  the  head  of  the  church,  and  the  obHgation  to 
obedience  as  in  the  kingdom  ol  God.  This  change  of  reason 
f(jr  counsel  and  obedience  is  of  importance  as  showing  conscious 
need  of  some  rational  ground  on  which  to  base  the  universal 
obligation  to  submission  and  counsel. 

AT  WAR  WITH  AMERICAN  INSTITUTIONS. 

26.  It  has  been  understood  from  tbe  very  beginning  of  tbe  Church 
that  no  officer  whose  duties  are  of  the  character  referred  to,  has  the  right 
to  engage  in  any  pursuit,  political  or  otherwise,  that  will  divide  his  time 
and  remove  his  attention  from  the  calling  already  accepted.  It  has  been 
the  constant  practice  with  officers  of  the  Church  to  consult — or,  to  use  our 
language,  to  "counsel" — with  their  brethren  concerning  all  questions  of 
this  kjnd. 

Here  is  the  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  counsel  and  submis-^ 
sion  as  originally  promulgated.  They  had  no  "right."  They 
had  relinquished  all  such  seculaf  rights.  In  order  to  be  rein- 
stated in  those  "rights"  they  must  consult  with  brethren  and  with 
those  in  authority  over  them.  In  the  former  sentence  this  rule 
is  modified  and  it  is  called  an  improper  thing  to  accept  office 
in  the  state.  The  earlier  doctrine  was  that  they  had  "no  righf^ 
1.0  do  so. 

But  it  is  made  very  evident  in  this  exposition  of  the  duty  of 
"counsel,"  how  thoroughly  and  essentially  it  is  at  war  with  the 
individuality  and  independent  manhood  required  by  the  Decla- 
ration of  Independence.  Just  consider!  Here  in  Utah 
is  a  majority  in  one  church,  every  reputable  male  member  of 
which  holds  some  ecclesiastical  office,  all  such  members  being 
bound  to  "counsel"  with  their  brethren  and  especially  with  those 
that  preside  over  them,  and  all  this  in  relation  to  secular  and  po- 
litical duty.  Everyone  relinquishes  his  individuality.  He  no  lon- 
g'er  acts  from  the  dictates  of  his  own  will,  but  from  the  will  of 
the  church. 

The  chief  authorities  do  not  dictate  to  individuals  how  they 
shall  vote;  but  they  determine  which  of  the  officers  shall  accept 
nominations  and  which  shall  not;  and  with  a  large  number  of 
voters  acting  as  a  reserve  corps,  ready  to  be  guided  by  the  least 
intimations  from  the  chief  authorities,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  any 
desired  result  can  be  predetermined. 

WHY  NOT? 

27.  They  have  not  felt  that  they  were  sacrificing  their  manhood  itt 
doing  so,  nor  that  they  were  submitting  to  improper  dictation,  nor  that  in 
soliciting  and  acting  upon  the  advice  of  those  over  them  they  were  in  any 
manner  doing  away  with  their  individual  rights  and  agency,  nor  that  ta 


THE   MANIFESTO   EXAMINED.  91 

any  improper  degree  were  their  rights  and  duties  as  American  citizens 
being  abridged  or  interfered  with. 

The  writer  breaks  down  in  the  last  clause  of  the  foregoing  long 
sentence: — "Nor  that  to  any  improper  degree  were  their  rights 
and  duties  as  American  citizens  being  abridged  or  interfered 
with.''  There  is  a  "degree"  in  which  they  feel  their  rights 
abridged  and  interfered  with;  but  it  is  not  an  "improper  degree.*' 
How  much  is  "proper;"  and  how  much  more  will  make  it  "im- 
proper?" Caesar's  -wife  was  to  be  "above  suspicion."  How  much 
latitude  could  there  be  until  it  would  become  "improper." 

No,  a  good  many  that  have  been  bound  hand  and  foot  for  lot 
these  many  years  with  the  two  fold  cord  of  church  counsel,  begin 
to  feel  new  that  in  nature  and  essence  it  stands  opposed  to  the 
spirit  of  American  freedom  and  independence,  and  that  their 
manhood  and  individuality  are  sacrificed  by  being  required  to 
submit  for  guidance  to  a  junta  of  the  church. 

PRIESTLY  OFFICES  AND  AUTHORITY. 

28.  They  realized  that  in  accepting  ecclesiastical  office  they  assumed 
certain  obligations;  that  among  these  was  the  obligation  to  magnify  the 
office  which  they  held,  to  attend  to  its  duties  in  preference  to  every  other 
labor,  and  to  devote  themselves  exclusively  to  it  with  all  the  zeal,  industry 
and  strength  they  possessed,  unless  released  in  part  or  for  a  time  by  those 
who  preside  over  them. 

In  tK«.  Mormon  church  "every  reputable  member"  is  entitled  to 
hold  office.  So  says  the  manifesto,  and  this  is  the  general  un- 
derstanding. The  not  holding  some  office  is  a  suggestion  of 
disrepute.  In  fact,  holding  an  office  of  some  kind  seems  neces- 
sary in  the  Mormon  church  as  an  evidence  of  full  and  reputable 
membership.  But  most  of  the  officials,  almost  all  indeed,  receive 
no  compensation  whatever. 

When  persons  agree  to  perform  certain  work  for  a  certain 
compensation,  they  are  amenable  to  those  who  employ  them, 
for  a  faithful  discharge  of  their  duties;  and  for  neglect  or  non- 
performance they  are  justly  liable  to  discharge  or  some  other 
expression  of  demerit. 

Thus  if  a  man  is  employed  by  a  mercantile  company  or  a 
church  committee  to  do  a  certain  work,  he  is  bound  to  do  it,  and 
to  make  reparation  for  neglect  of  duty  or  lost  time.  If  an  em- 
ployee desired  to  devote  time  that  was  unemployed  or  uncon- 
tracted  for  by  the  company  or  committee  to  other  work,  it 
would  be  his  right  and  privilege  to  do  so.  All  that  his  employ- 
ers could  require  would  be  performance  of  duty;  all  that  they 
could  censure  him  for  would  be  neglect  or  non-performance  of 


92  THE   LATE    MANIFi  STO   IN    POLITICS. 

the  duties  for  which  they  had  employed  him.  If  his  employers 
demanded  the  right  to  control  his  unemployed  time,  so  as  to 
say  what.  he.  should  or  should  not  do  during"  the  hours  for 
which  he  was  not  under  contract  to  them,  they  would  then  tres- 
pass on  his  rights,  and  he  would  be  under  no  obligation  to  yield 
to  them. 

Of  course  the  great  majority  of  the  officers  of  the  Mormon 
church  have  duties  to  perform  that  require  but  little  of  their 
time,  and  almost  none  at  all  of  their  week  day  time,  and  none 
are  required  to  make  special  preparations  in  order  to  address  the 
people.  Nearly  all  officers  make  their  living  and  support  their 
familie«;  by  some  secular  occupation  or  profession.  A  number 
of  the  apostles  even  are  laborious  and  thrifty  business  men  de- 
voting a  large  share  of  their  time  to  secular  work. 

Under  such  circumstances  it  is  wholly  preposterous  for  the 
chief  authorities  to  claim  the  right  to  dictate  to  a  member  or  an 
officer  in  reference  to  the  time  that  is  naturally  and  ordinarily 
taken  up  with  secular  occupation  in  order  to  earn  a  living  for 
the  individual  himself  and  his  family.  If  a  man  is  a  farmer,  he 
devotes  some  of  his  time  to  church  duties,  but  he  seldom  neglects 
his  farm  occupations.  If  he  is  elected  to  a  civil  office,  he  devotes 
even  less  time  to  his  office  than  he  formerly  did  to  his  farm. 

What  reason  or  justice  is  there  in  the  claim  that  because  a 
fanner,  a  merchant  oi  an  artisan  devotes  a  small  portion  of  his 
time  to  church  duties,  that  therefore  a  priesthood  must  pass  upon 
his  right  to  devote  the  secular  part  of  his  time  to  some  kind  of 
civil  service?  Is  it  not  evident  at  a  glance  that  such  claims  are 
unreasonable  and  tyrannical? 

All  that  a  priesthood  having  charge  of  church  aflfairs  can  de- 
mand of  a  subordinate  officer,  is  that  he  perform  his  duty  prop- 
erly. All  that  they  can  justly  and  honorably  do  in  the  way  of 
discipline  is  because  of  neglect  or  non-pefrormance  of  duty. 
Because  a  man  is  commissioned  to  devote  a  fraction  of  his  time 
to  the  church,  they  can  not  have  a  right  to  dictate  how  he  shall 
employ  the  balance  of  his  secular  time.  All  such  claims  savor 
of  capricious  and  unprincipled  monarchy. 

A  SERIOUS  PENALTY. 

29.  Our  view,  and  it  has  been  the  view  of  all  our  predecessors,  is  that 
no  oflScer  of  our  church,  especially  those  in  high  stand  ng,  should  take  a 
course  to  violate  this  long-established  practice.  Rather  than  disobey  it, 
and  declare  himself  defiantly  independent  of  his  associates  and  his  file 
leaders,  it  has  always  been  held  that  it  would  be  better  for  a  man  to  re- 
sign the  duties  of  his  priesthood;  and  we  entertain  the  same  view  to-day. 


THE   MANIFESTO   EXAMINED.  93 

But  in  the  Mormon  church  more  than  any  other,  perhaps,  the 
priesthood  constitutes  the  Ufe  and  significance  of  the  church; 
and  to  be  deprived  of  priesthood  as  a  matter  of  discipline  re- 
flects t-   the  man's  discredit,  and  thus  becomes  a  penal  alternative. 

In  such  a  case,  the  member  deprived  of  ofificial  standing  as 
a  punishment,  is  in  little  better  condition  than  an  open  apos- 
tate. He  must  feel  the  confidence  and  respect  of  the  Church 
are  withdrawn  from  him,  for  his  loyalty  to  liberty  has  led  him 
to  refuse  to  do  what  all  the  other  members  of  the  priesthood 
have  done,  some  willingly  and  others  through  fear  and  com- 
pulsion. Thus  his  patriotism  ostracizes  him.  It  marks  him 
out  as  unpleasantly  peculiar  and  unbrotherly  in  the  Church. 
It  makes  him  a  target  for  unkind  and  unwise  criticism  on  the 
part  of  those  who  have  not  studied  and  thought  upon  the 
question,  and  who  are  consequently  unable  to  understand  and 
appreciate  his  motives. 

Why  is  it  that  no  American  Protestant  Church  has  ever  made 
such  demands  upon  minor  officers?  A  deacon  or  an  elder  in 
a  Presbyterian  Church,  or  a  minor  ofificer  in  any  other  Protest- 
ant Church,  is  at  libeaty  to  conduct  his  secular  affairs  as  he 
sees  proper,  so  that  he  abstains  from  those  forms  of  business 
that  are  denounced  as  vicious  and  immoral  by  the  churches. 
Would  the  members  and  minor  ofificers  of  any  American 
Pretestant  Church  tolerate  any  such  rule  as  is  here  sought  to 
be  enforced?  No.  They  would  rebel  against  it  instantly. 
Neither  would  the  Catholic  Church  either  attempt  or  care  to 
enforce  such  a  rule.  Is  it  reasonable  that  the  Mormon  Church, 
which  is  now  greatly  in  the  majority  in  a  State  that  has  just 
attained  Statehood,  should  enact  a  rule  that  is  more  exacting, 
more  liable  to  abuse  and  temptation,  than  that  of  any  other 
church  in  the  Western  Hemisphere? 

All  these  evil  consequences  and  possibilities  could  have 
been  avoided  by  framing  a  rule  in  harmony  with  the  circum- 
stances as  they  actually  exist  in  the  Mormon  Church.  There 
are  a  few  ofilicers  that  are  supposed  to  devote  the  most  or  all 
their  time  to  Church  work.  These  are  the  First  Presidency, 
the  Apostles,  the  Presidents  of  the  Seventies,  and  a  very  few 
others.  These,  by  the  custom  and  consent  of  the  Church, 
receive  certain  amounts  for  their  temporal  needs,  perhaps  only 
enough  to  partially  support  them,  the  balance  to  be  procured 
through  some  secular  occupation.  It  is  reasonable  to  require 
that  these  men  confine  themselves  to  Church  work,  and  that 


94  THE   LATE   MANIFESTO   IN   POLITICS. 

they  should  not  engage  in  politics  so  long  as  they  continued 
in  ecclesiastical  office. 

But  as  to  the  vast  number  of  members  who  are  minor 
officers  in  the  Church,  deacons  and  elders  and  bishops  of 
wards,  it  is  utterly  unreasonable  and  tyrannical  to  control  their 
secular  time  or  business  occupations  because  of  their  mem- 
bership in  the  lower  priesthood  to  which  all  male  members  in 
good  standing  are  eligible.  All  that  could  be  required  in 
justice  and  right  would  be  sincere  devotion  to  duty,  and  dis- 
cipline for  neglect  and  non-performance  of  duty. 

It  is  now  generally  known  that  a  large  proportion  of  the 
higher  officials  in  the  Church  were  in  favor  of  a  regulation  in 
accordance  with  the  foregoing  principles;  but  in  this  they 
were  overruled,  and  the  present  rule  was  promulgated.  Cer- 
tainly Mr.  B.  H.  Roberts'  bold  and  manly  words  last  fall  were 
decidedly  against  such  a  regulation;  and  those  thousands  of 
independent  and  liberty-loving  Mormons  who  agreed  with  him 
then  will  be  slow  to  accept  the  contrary  doctrine  with  full  pur- 
pose of  heart.  It  is  apparent  at  a  glance  that  the  rule  now 
proclaimed  achieves  a  purpose  that  could  not  have  been  sub- 
served by  a  rule  that  would  prohibit  high  officials  from  enter- 
ing politics.  The  difference  is  that  the  rule  now  laid  down 
puts  all  the  officials  of  the  Church  under  a  control  that  is  to 
all  intents  and  purposes  in  the  hands  of  a  centralized  power,  a 
power  that  can  say  to  one,  "come,"  and  he  cometh;  to  another, 
"•'  go,"  and  he  goeth. 

If  this  rule  gets  to  working  efficiently  in  all  the  regions 
where  the  Mormon  Church  is  now  in  the  ascendency,  and  in 
those  States  where  it  holds  the  balance  of  power,  it  may  be 
made  the  means  of  accomplishing  important  political  results. 
Our  Presidential  elections  are  so  close  at  times  that  a  few 
votes  in  the  electoral  college  turns  the  scale.  Under  this  rule 
an  ambitious  leadership  could  easily  determine  the  political 
status  of  one  or  more  States,  and  thus  decide  a  Presidential 
contest.  As  a  matter  of  money  such  a  power  would  be  worth 
millions  of  a  corruption  fund;  but  its  exercise  would  imperil 
the  peace  and  safety  of  the  commonwealth;  its  existence 
would  be  a  menace  to  free  institutions;  and  to  destroy  it,  the 
whole  country,  if  necsssary,  would  desolate  our  fair  valleys 
and  fill  every  house  with  mourning. 

CLEARING  THE  DECK  FOR  ACTION. 
30.    In  view  of  all  the  occurrences  to  which  reference  has  been  made, 
and  to  the  diversity  of  views  that  have  arisen  among  the  people  in  conse 


THE   MANIFESTO   EXAMINED.  95 

<iuepce,  we  feel  it  to  be  our  duty  to  clearly  define  our  position,  so  there 
may  be  no  cause  hereafter  for  dispute  or  controversy  upon  the  subject. 

By  the  constitution  of  the  Moniion  church,  a  solemn  declara- 
tion like  this  manifesto  commits  the  priesthood  to  a  certain  line 
of  action  which  would  be  continuous  and  unchanged  except  as 
subsequently  modified  by  some  equally  solemn  declaration. 

The  authorities  aim  to  have  "no  dispute  or  controversy*'  as 
to  their  oosition.  Yet  their  document  is  so  redundant  and  am- 
l)iguou3,  both  in  the  rule  itself  which  follows,  and  in  the  grounds 
laid  for  the  rule,  that  there  could  be  no  end  of  doubt  and  contro- 
versy; unless  indeed,  which  sems  possible,  the  whole  subject 
should  die  away  in  importance  and  eflfectiveness  until  it  ceases  to 
be  an  authoritative  regulation.  The  light  of  liberty  and  popular 
education  is  growing  and  spreading  too  rapidly  to  permit  a  reg- 
ulation so  monarchical  and  undemocratic  to  flourish  upon  Amer- 
ican soil  and  among  a  free  people. 

THE  RULE  OF  COUNSEL. 

First — We  unanimously  agree  to  and  promulgate  as  a  rule  that  should 
always  be  observed  in  the  Church  and  by  every  leading  official  thereof, 
that  before  accepting  any  position,  political  or  otherwise,  which  would 
interfere  with  the  proper  and  complete  discharge  of  his  ecclesiastical 
duties,  and  before  accepting  a  nomination  or  entering  into  engagements  to 
perform  new  duties,  said  official  should  apply  to  the  proper  authorities  and 
learn  from  them  whether  he  can,  consistently  with  the  obligations  already 
entered  into  with  the  Church  upon  assuming  his  office,  take  upon  himself 
the  added  duties  and  labors  and  responsibility. 

This  rule  is  to  be  perpetuated:  it  is  "always  to  be  observed." 
It  applies  to  every  member  of  "the  church;"  and  it  specially  ap- 
plies to  "every  leading  official  thereof."  It  applies  to  "any  posi- 
tion, political  or  otherwise,"  that  the  member  would  wish  to  enter 
upon.  It  applies  to  any  "nomination"  to  civil  office.  All  of  these 
may  be  construed  to  "interfere  with  the  proper  and  complete  dis- 
charge of  ecclesiastical  duties."  Before  accepting  any  such  new 
occupation  the  member  must  apply  to  the  "proper  authorities" 
for  permission.  They  propose  to  decide  whether  the  new  duties 
will  be  compatible  with  the  performance  of  church  duties  already 
assumed. 

The  grounds  on  which  this  rule  is  laid  is  that  certain  duties  are 
already  a.ssumed,  and  that  when  new  employments  are  undertaken 
the  authorities  must  decide  upon  their  compatibility  with  existing 
cbligaticjus.  In  this  way  every  officer  and  member,  male  and 
female,  is  bound  to  seek  coimsel  for  every  new  step  in  political, 
•civil  or  industrial  affairs  that  it  may  be  desired  to  take. 


CHAPTER  NINTH. 


OASES  AND  PRINCIPLES  IN  CHURCH  AND  STATE. 


ROBERTS  AND  THATCHER. 

And  now  the  question  arises,  was  Moses  Thatcher  right  in 
withholding  his  assent  to  the  rule  promulgated  in  the  manifesto? 
He  was  willing  at  the  outset,  and  possibly  may  still  be  of  the 
same  mind,  to  concur  in  the  regulations  whereby  all  the  high 
officers  in  the  church  should  remain  entirely  out  of  politics.  But 
he  wa?  not  willing  to  endorse  a  rule  that  makes  it  uncertain 
whether  a  man's  political  allegiance  is  first  of  all  to  the  state 
or  to  the  leading  authorities  of  the  churck  It  seems  that  Elder 
B.  H.  Roberts  was  of  the  same  opinion  as  to  the  authority  of 
the  church.  At  the  time  of  his  political  canvass  last  fall  he  was 
reported  in  the  papers  as  follows: 

"I  believe  the  church  has  a  right  to  say  whether  or  not  its  high 
cilicials  shall  be  allowed  to  participate  in  politics.  If  they  de- 
cide that  certain  officials  shall  not  enter  politics,  it  is  for  those 
officers  to  submit  to  the  regulation  or  resig^.  But  if  the  church 
permits  its  high  officials  to  enter  politics  at  all,  then  those  men 
ought  to  be  absolutely  free  to  follow  their  own  discretion  as  to 
wliat  their  politics  shall  be  and  the  extent  to  which  they  shall 
engage  in  the  affairs  of  government,  as  anything  short  of  this 
would  tender  party  loyalty  impossible.  I  do  not  ^believe  that 
Democratic  officials  ought  to  be  expected  to  go  to  Republican 
church  officials  for  counsel  in  political  affairs,  or  vice  versa.  Such 
a  requirement  in  our  community  would  place  the  control  of  the 
respective  parties  under  the  church  officials,  and  would  give  up 
political  affairs  entirely  into  their  hands.  I  see  no  middle 
ground  between  absolute  and  complete  retirement  on  the  part 
of  high  Mormon  church  officials  from  politics,  or  else  perfect 
freedc  m  of  conduct  in  respect  to  politics — ^trusting  the  individ- 
ual's own  discretion  and  judgment  in  political  concerns." 

Note  Mr.  Roberts'  very  significant  language — "If  high  offi- 
cials are  permitted  to  enter  politics,  they  must  be  left  absolutely 
free  to  follow  their  own  discretion."  Again,  "Democratic  offi- 
cials (Mcrrmon)  should  not  be  required  to  go  to  Republican 
church  officials  for  counsel  in  political  affairs,  or  vice  versa.'' 
Whvi'     Mr.  Roberts  says  "it  would  place  the  control  of  the  re- 


CASES   AND   PRINCIPLES   IN   CHURCH   AND   STATE.  97 

spectiv«  parties  under  the  church  officials,  and  would  give  up 
pcHtical  affairs  entirely  into  their  hands."  He  says  further,  there 
must  be  "a  complete  retirement  of  Mormon  church  officials  from 
politics,  or  else  perfect  freedom  of  conduct  with  respect  to 
politics." 

Of  c«>urse,  with  siith  convictions  as  are  above  expressed,  Mr. 
Robert?  could  in  no  wise  sign  the  manifesto^  and  that  he  did 
finally  sign  it  can  only  be  explained  by  a  state  of  facts  similar  to 
those  reported  by  the  papers,  as  having  been  set  forth  in  the  high 
council  meeting  at  Logan,  as  follows: 

ApGstle  Heber  J.  went  on  to  say  that  the  brethren  had  worked 
with  B.  H.  Roberts  for  nine  weeks  before  they  brought  him 
around.  After  the  first  protracted  effort  availed  them  nothing 
they  gave  him  a  couple  of  weeks  to  think  the  matter  over,  and 
counsel  with  the  authorities  at  his  leisure.  When  his  period  of 
reflection  expired  they  met  with  him  ag^n,  but  found  his  heart 
like  stone.  They  prayed  with  him  and  wept  over  him,  but  with- 
out avail.  Another  extension  of  time  was  given  him,  during 
whicii  they  all  took  up  aj  labor  with  him,  but  he  was  still  un- 
willing to  admit  that  he  had  done  wrong. 

In  the  meantime  Apostle  Grant  said,  he  and  F.  M.  Lyman  had 
been  appointed  a  committee  to  persuade  Roberts  that  he  was  in 
error.  Day  after  day  and  night  after  night  they  went  to  him 
and  wept  and  prayed,  and  he  wept  and  prayed,  but  insisted  that 
he  had  dc»ne  no  wrong.  This  continued  for  nine  weeks,  at  the 
end  of  which  time  he  yielded.  One  morning  he  appeared  before 
the  authorities  and  told  them  he  was  ready  to  acknowledge  his 
wrong  and  would  sign  any  paper  they  might  ask  him  to  sign,  or 
dn  an}1:hing  they  might  tell  him!  to  do. 

Whether  or  not  the  foregoing  statement  is  absolutely  faithful 
to  the  facts  in  the  case,  is  unimportant;  though  supposing  the 
narrative  to  be  strictly  correct,  there  is  nothing  in  it  that  is  seri- 
ously derogatory  to  an  honest  man's  character.  It  shows  that 
there  must  be  great  pressure  brought  to  bear  upon  a  strong 
man  ere  he  can  surrender  a  deep  and  consistent  conviction. 
It  shows  that  a  man  must  be  harrassed  and  distressed  and  his 
nights  filled  with  troubled  dreams,  ere  he  can  do  such  a  thing. 
Under  such  circumstances  there  remains  an  appeal  from  Mr. 
Roberts  after  nine  weeks  continuous  agitation,  to  the  same 
man  when  free  and  unobstructed,  boldly  and  eloquently  dis- 
cussing the  rights  of  church  and  state. 

THE  CASE  OF  MOSES  THATCHER. 

The  charges  against  Moses  Thatcher,  so  far  as  we  have  been 
able  tci  ascertain  them,  were  quite  fully  delineated  at  the  stake 


•98  THE   LATE   MANIFESTO   IN    POLITICS. 

high  council  meeting  at  Logan,  and  they  seem  to  be  about  as 
follows: 

I — "Moses  Thatcher's  attitude  all  through  the  political  fight 
in  Utah  could  not  be  justified." 

2 — ^"He  had  been  the  one  apostle  who  had  refused  to  take 
counsel'  as  to  how  the  people  should  be  divided  up." 

3 — "The  first  presidency  and  all  the  twelve  but  Thatcher  had 
decided  upon  a  certain  policy  to  get  the  relief  they  'leeded  from 
the  government;  but  Thatcher  had  stood  out  against  them." 

4 — "He  had  been  opposing  his  brethren  ever  since  the  divi- 
sion on  party  lines;  and  had  not  been  in  harmony  with  hi« 
brethren." 

2 — "The  meeting  called  in  the  Gardo  House  to  consider  the  ad- 
visabilit}^  of  disbanding  the  People's  party  was  attended  by  many 
of  the  authorities,  stake  presidents  and  leaders  of  the  People^^ 
party.  It  was  plainly  stated  at  this  meeting  that  men  in  high 
au'^hority  who  believed  in  Republican  principles  should  go  out 
among  the  people,  but  that  those  in  high  authority  who  could 
not  indorse  the  principles  of  Republicanism  should  remain  silent 
Their  counsel  was  obeyed  by  all  the  apostles  and  high  authori- 
ties except  Moses  Thatcher,  who  talked  to  the  people  contrary 
to  the  Avirhes  of  his  brethren. 

6 — "If  it  had  not  been  for  his  condition,  Moses  Thatcher  would 
have  been  called  to  account  for  his  declaration  in  the  opera 
liouse,  (here  giving  Thatcher's  declaration  of  political  indepen- 
dence,) but  if  he  ever  became  able  he  would  have  to  answer  for 
that  as  well  as  other  things  they  proposed  to  charge  against 
liin-./' 

7 — "The  speaker  said  that  the  only  concession  Moses  Thatcher 
ever  had  made  was  that  he  would  always  submit  to  the  will  of 
the  majority,  but  would  not  admit  that  he  was  wrong,  although 
all  his  brethren  voted  against  him." 

The  last  charge.  No.  7,  shows  a  wonderful  concession  on  the 
part  of  Mr.  Thatcher.  While  his  judgment  could  not  be  con- 
vinced of  the  rectitude  of  such  a  plot  as  was  hatched  at  the 
Gardo  House,  or  of  the  righteousness  of  other  plans  for  divid- 
ing the  people  like  so  many  cattle  and  sheep;  yet  he  was  willing, 
according  to  democratic  principles,  to  submit  to  the  "will  of  the 
majority.'' 

As  to  charge  No.  6,  his  declaration  at  the  opera  house  as  given 
in  preceding  pages,  that  declaration  is  in  harmony  with  the  sol- 
emn pledges  of  the  church,  pledges  which  Moses  Thatcher  him- 
self ratified  most  devoutly.    What  sort  of  justice  or  honor  would 


CASES   AND    PRINCIPLES   IN   CHURCH   AND   STATE.  99 

that  be  which  would  require  him  to  renounce  his  own  political 
faith,  der.y  his  own  personal  pledges  and  withal  dishonor  the 
covenants  cf  his  church? 

In  reference  to  charge  No.  5.  the  whole  recital  is  something 
so  sepulchral  and  uncanny,  so  utterly  out  of  harmony  with  the 
honor  and  rectitude  of  open  daylight  and  honest  business,  that 
everybody  will  forget  at  once  that  it  contains  an  accusation 
against  a  noblej  man,  and  only  hope  that  such  a  seeming  con- 
spiracy against  American  institutions  was  never  plotted. 

All  the  other  charges  mean  simply  that  Moses  Thatcher  had 
refused  to  concur  in  a  plan  adopted  and  promulgated  at  the 
Gardo  house  to  divide  the  people  into  political  parties  according 
to  a  certain  policy.  He  had  been  willing  to  keep  entirely  out  of 
politics  according  to  the  rule  first  adopted;  but  when  this  was 
set  aside  and  the  Gardo  House  rule  put  in  operation  he  refused 
to  be  bound  by  it;  and  for  so  doing  he  will  have  the  approbation 
of  posterity,  and  doubtless  that  of  the  God  of  all. 

PLEASE  EXPLAIN! 

A  great  part  of  the  manifesto  is  devoted  to  the  subject  of 
church  and  state;  not  that  any  attempt  is  made  to  define  what  is 
meant  by  the  one  or  the  other;  but  to  make  it  clear  by  many  and 
oft-repeated  disavowals  that  no  thought  or  desire  or  attempt  has 
ever  been  made  or  ever  will  be  made  to  unite  church  and  state,  or 
to  permit  the  functions  of  the  one  to  interfere  with  those  of  the 
other. 

One  is  cc^mpelled  to  wonder  what  kind  of  a  state  is  meant  by 
the  writer.'  of  the  manifesto?  Surely  it  can  not  be  an  American 
state!  If  you  have  not  interfered  with  the  state,  how  is  it  that 
you  have  controlled  the  politics  of  the  parties  by  taking  from 
one  side  and  adding  to  the  other  until  the  state  of  Utah  now 
ranks  in  a  different  organization  and  marches  under  a  different 
banner  frcm  that  of  half  a  dozen  years  ago,  or  even  less?  Who 
made  this  variation?  Surely  it  was  made  in  great  part  by  the 
church  authorities. 

If  you  did  not  wish  to  interfere  with  the  state,  why  would  you 
send  out  men  to  speak  and  organize  for  one  side,  while  the  lead- 
ers for  the  other  side  were  commanded  or  counseled  to  keep  si- 
lent? If  you  wish  not  to  interfere  with  the  state,  why  should  you 
seek  to  punish  Moses  Thatcher  for  not  co-operating  with  you 
!)y  keeping  silent  while  other  leaders  were  converting  his  friends 
and  neighbcrs  to  a  new  political  profession? 


100  THE    LATE    MANIFESTO    IN    TOLITICS. 

If  you  wish  not  to  interfere  with  the  state,  why  do  you  en- 
courage church  members  to  be  guided  by  your  preferences  in 
political  matters?  Why  do  you  not  disabuse  the  minds  of  the 
people  and  command  them  to  be  guided  by  their  own  thinking 
and  their  own  preferences?  Why  should  it  be  a  matter  of  im- 
portance to  the  brethren  all  over  Utah  to  know  the  position  of 
the  "chief  authorities"  on  political  matters? 

If  there  has  been  no  attempt  to  infringe  on  the  state,  why 
should  there  be  any  concern  about  political  parties?  Why 
should  noi  one  be  as  welcome  as  the  other?  And  above  all,  why 
should  the  authorities  wish  to  consult  with  every  member  in 
order  to  determine  for  him  whether  he  shall  accept  an  office  or 
not?  Suppose  a  certain  farmer  is  a  deacon  or  bishop  in  the 
church  i-  which  he  holds  membership,  and  that  he  is  desirous 
of  some  civil  office  in  his  county.  For  twenty  years  he  has  lived 
on  his  farm  and  attended  church  on  Sunday,  giving  thus  a  small 
portion  of  his  time  to  ecclesiastical  duty.  Now,  why  should 
such  a  man  be  compelled  to  accept  and  hold  a  civil  office  under 
the  aut:i»  rization  and  control  of  his  superiors  in  church  office, 
on  the  pica  that  he  held  a  little  official  position  in  the  church,  and 
for  that  reason  he  must  submit  all  other  duties  and  undertakings 
to  1h'    arbitrament  of  "counsel?" 

LEAD  US   NOT  INTO  TEMPTATION. 

If  the  chief  authorities  are  really  desirous  of  keeping  out  of 
politics  and  abjuring  the  functions  of  the  state,  why  should  they 
ordain  a  rule  that  forever  puts  it  within  their  power  to  control  the 
state?  Nearly  every  reputable  male  member  of  the  Mormon 
church  is  an  officer  of  some  kind.  The  chief  authorities  are  the 
authors  of  the  policies  that  shape  the  "counsels"  of  all  that  are 
subordinate  to  them  in  the  priesthood.  Every  reputable  mem- 
ber -is  guided  by  the  counsels  of  the  chiefs,  either  directly  or 
indirectly. 

Now  what  is  the  magnitude  and  nature  of  this  power?  It  ex- 
tendf  to  the  whole  population  of  the  church.  Within  this  radius 
it  is  practically  absolute.  Moreover  the  power  is  priestly — that 
is,  it  is  paternal  and  patriarchal;  just  such  power  as  should  not 
be  used  in  relation  tc  the  state. 

But  tlie  inquiry  arises — if  the  authorities  do  not  want  to  con- 
trol the  state,  why  do  they  surround  themselves  with  the  means 
of  doing  it?  Why  do  they  place  themselves  in  the  very  vortex 
of  temptation?  If  the  members  are  devoted  and  sincere,  and  if 
they  submit  to  such  a  rule  of  counsel,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 


CASES   AND    PRINCIPLES   IN   CHURCH   AND   STATE.  101 

they  are  at  the  mercy  of  their  superiors  in  office.  With  such 
prAver  in  their  hands,  it  is  the  invariable  verdict  of  history  that 
those  who  hold  it  never  fail  to  use  it  to  achieve  their  own  sel- 
fish ends. 

It  is  not  right  in  the  sight  of  God  for  any  man  to  hold  politi- 
cal power  over  another  man.  It  is  not  right  in  the  sight  of  man ; 
for  long  ago  have  men  declared  that  "all  are  created  equal;"  all 
are   endowed  with  the  same  "inalienable  rights." 

If  the  chief  authorities  had  desired  to  frame  a  rule  that  would 
put  the  state  out  of  danger  in  case  an  ambitious  priesthood 
should  arise,  they  might  have  done  so  by  requiring  that  all  the 
higher  officials  abstain  from  all  fonns  of  political  advocacy  and 
from  all  civil  office;  and  they  might  further  require  faithful  per- 
formance^ of  duty  in  all  minor  offices,  with  discipline  for  neglect 
and  nc-n-performance  of  duty.  For  violation  of  the  rule  on  the 
part  of  high  officials,  it  might  be  required  that  they  resign  their 
places;  and  the  same  penalty  could  be  exacted  from  minor  offi- 
cials for  neglect  or  non-performance  of  duty. 

In  such  a  regulation  the  church  would  stand  in  a  negative 
relation  to  the  state.  It  would  have  no  positive  authorization  to 
make.  As  the  rule  reads,  the  church  authorizes  the  official  to 
seek  office.  It  commissions  and  qualifies  him.  It  gives  him  a 
certificate  of  character  to  church  people.  It  tells  the  members 
of  the  church  that  he  is  the  one  to  vote  for.  If  any  member 
should  defy  this  counsel  he  would  be  classed  as  an  apostate,  and 
his  political  prospects  would  be  blasted.  Thus  the  power  of  pre- 
senting officers  to  the  state  would  be  complete  in  the  priesthood. 
It  would  swallow  up  the  state  completely.  Not  more  absolute 
would  be  Rome  of  the  middle  ages,  or  England  under  Henry  the 
Eighth.  The  only  prevention  would  be  the  inability  of  the  priest- 
hood t.    enforce  discipline. 

But  why  should  the  chief  authorities  thus  surround  themselves 
with  unnecessary  burdens,  and  most  of  all  with  needless  and 
perilous  teir.ptations?  Surely,  if  they  sought  only  "those  things 
that  are  honest  in  the  sight  of  all  men,"  they  would  put  away 
from  thejnselves  and  their  successors  in  office  every  possibility 
of  wielding  a  political  power  so  enormous  and  far  reaching,  so 
tempting  to  carnal  ambition,  so  corroding  and  burdensome  to 
such  noble  souls  as  are  fitted  by  the  divine  spirit  to  be  guides  and 
expounders  of  eternal  life. 

CHURCH  AND  STATE  FUNCTIONS, 
llie  sphere  of  civil  government  extends  to  acts — external  con- 
duct,   r  cc  mmands  the  performance  or  non-performance  of  acts. 


102  THE   LATE   MANIFESTO   IN    POLITICS. 

Civil  government  does  not  extend  to  the  thoughts  and  beliefs 
and  whatever  constitutes  the  spirit  world.  The  church  is  based 
upon  the  religious  sentiments,  and  its  true  sphere  is  within  the 
spiritual  domain  where  alone  sin  and  righteousness  and  morality 
prevail.  Acts  of  themselves  have  no  moral  quality;  and  it  is  only 
as  they  exist  in  the  thoughts,  desires,  intentions,  that  they  have 
in?portance  in  the  estimation  of  religion.  If  a  man  is  insane,  all 
his  acts  count  for  nothing,  however  good  or  evil  they  might  be, 
were  the  man  of  sound  mind.  In  the  church  acts  are  of  im- 
portcUic'  only  as  evidences  of  good  or  bad  states  of  soul.  The 
church  can  take  no  cognizance  whatever  of  the  physical  act  of 
adultery:  the  state  alone  has  jurisdiction  over  the  outward  act 
But  the  church  acts  with  reference  to  the  purpose  of  heart 
which  dictates  the  adultery.  The  outward  act  is  the  evidence  of 
ihe  mtcmal  state;  and  the  church  performs  its  work  as  having 
jurisdiction  of  the  spirit  and  not  with  respect  to  external  con- 
duct. The  state  has  no  query  whatever  in  regard  to  sin  and 
righteousness.  It  looks  to  public  order  and  welfare  and  has  no 
eyes  to  see  either  sin  or  holiness. 

The  church  may  close  its  doors  againset  a  member  because 
of  certain  acts,  but  it  has  jurisdiction  only  over  the  spirit,  and 
the  act  is  simply  testimony  as  to  what  has  been  done  in  the  heart 
out  of  which  proceeds  all  good  and  evil. 

Church  and  state  may  each  do  much  to  modify  each  other; 
but  in  doing  this,  each  must  remain  and  work  in  its  own 
sphere.  Thus  the  state  may  for  its  own  preservation  and  wel- 
fare establish  a  school  system  that  will  mould  civilization  and 
transform  all  the  beliefs  and  conceptions  of  men.  In  this  way 
religious  c  pinions  and  ordinances  are  greatly  changed  from  age 
to  age. 

The  state  may  enforce  order  and  protect  life  and  property 
everywhere,  in  the  church  assembly,  at  the  altar — wherever  hu- 
man beings  and  property  exist.  But  the  state  can  not  enforce 
the  discipline  or  ritual  of  the  church.  It  cannot  order  baptisms, 
commii.ion  and  confirmation.  It  cannot  pay  preachers  and 
provide  h<,uses  of  worship.  And  in  speaking  here  of  the  state, 
we  are  enforcing  the  American  conception  of  the  state,  with 
which   only  we  have  to  do. 

The  church  may  modify  and  mould  the  state;  it  may  change 
the  characters  of  men  and  women;  it  may  transform  society  and 
civilization;  it  may  unseat  presidents,  abolish  laws,  defeat  parties, 
inaugurate  bloody  ana  destructive  wars.  But  how  shall  this  oe 
done?     By  working  in  its  own  sphere.     By  enlightening     and 


CASES   AND    PRINCIPLES    IN   CHURCH    AND   STATE.  103" 

moving  the  souls  of  men  and  women.  By  laying  within  the  soul 
of  the  citizen  the  foundations  of  character,  will  and  purpose, 
thus  giving  the  motive  and  incentive  to  action. 

The  church  may  teach  principles  that  will  surely  build  up  or 
defeat  a  great  political  party,  and  thus  rehabilitate  the  state. 
But  it  would  depart  from  its  sphere  if  it  should  use  its  priestly 
authocrity  to  control  political  action  or  manipulate  parties.  In 
m.cdifying  the  state  the  church  can  only  fulfill  the  office  of  a 
seer  or  revelator.  It  can  within  its  own  sphere  reveal  truths 
that  wUl  rock  the  state  to  its  foundations,  possibly  overthrow  it 
entirely.  But  the  authority  in  this  case  is  the  authority  of  the 
truths  revealed,  not  a  priestly  authority  which  adheres  to  the 
perse  n  of  the  priest. 

There  is  an  infinite  diflference  between  the  priestly  authority 
of  the  priest  and  the  authority  of  truth  itself.  In  a  mathematical 
demonstration  there  is  a  sense  of  authority  or  self  existence  of 
truth  that  is  called  conviction.  This  authority  is  infinite  and 
eternal,  and  it  inheres  in  the  nature  and  essence  of  the  soul,  and 
in  the  nature  of  universal  spirit.  But  the  authority  of  a  priest 
is  that  of  an  official  personage.  The  submission  and  obedience 
rendered  him  is  that  of  a  child  to  a  parent.  It  is  not  the  result 
of  rational  motive.  In  consenting  to  receive  a  man  as  a  priest,, 
wc  becimie  children,  and  the  priest  stands  as  the  heavenly  Fa- 
ther. We  take  the  prescription  of  the  physician,  not  because  we 
understand  therapeutics,  but  because  we  consent  to  be  ministered 
to  as  a  dnld. 

Tti  the  civil  state  men  act  from  rational  considerations  and  with 
reference  to  definite  and  practical  ends.  It  is  largely  a  question 
of  experience.  It  turns  on  the  operation  of  the  law  of  cause  and 
efifect.  Whatever  the  church  does  with  reference  to  the  state  it 
should  dc  by  revelation  of  truth  in  reference  to  civil  duty  and 
the  standard  of  character.  If  it  should  attempt  priestly  control 
over  nitn^  as  children  are  controlled  by  a  parent;  or  as  the  phy- 
sician requires  submission  from  a  patient;  it  would  then  resort 
to  priestly  authority  over  civil  action  and  inflict  a  grievous 
wrong  against  the  state. 

THE  AMERICAN  STATE. 

Under  the  American  system  there  are  two  distinct  spheres  for 
church  and  state,  and  they  must  be  kept  separate  from  inception 
to  culmination.  In  the  one  sphere,  according  to  the  words  of 
Christ,  we  must  "render  unto  Caesar  the  things  that  are 
Caesars;"  and  in  the  other  we  must  "render  unto  God  the  things 


104  THE    LATE   MANIFESTO   IN   POLITICS. 

that  are  God's."  The  foundation  of  the  state  is  the  individual 
soiils  t">f  men  and  women  created  by  God  in  his  image  and  after 
his  likeness,  endowed  in  the  nature  of  things  with  inalienable 
rights  cf  life,  liberty  and  happiness.  These  rights  exist  inde- 
pendently of  government;  they  exist  in  order  to  government  and 
a  true  government  is  an  expansion  and  administration  of  these 
primal  rights;  and  in  proportion  as  governments  accomplish  this 
work  the>  have  a  right  to  exist;  and  when  they  fail  to  do  this 
they  should  be  abolished.  These  principles  as  written  by  Jeffer- 
son are  the  magna  charta  of  American  liberty  and  they  can 
never  be  abrogated. 

The  inception  and  origin  of  the  state  is  the  endowment  of  right 
with  which  God  has  constituted  the  soul.  Hence  the  state  does 
not  get  its  right  and  power  to  exist  from  the  church.  The  state 
is  an  original  and  independent  inspiration;  and  however  much  it 
ir^ay  blend  with  the  church,  there  are  two  spheres,  and  neither 
one  must  subvert  the  other.  Neither  must  one  be  subordinate  to 
the  other  or  dependent  upon  it.  The  state  must  not  present  offi- 
cers to  the  church,  as  is  done  in  all  state  churches;  nor  must  the 
church  present  officers  to  the  state  as  would  virtually  be  the  case 
under  the  manifesto. 

Tiie  manifesto  lays  the  foundation  for  a  church  regime  similar 
in  its  significance  and  portent  to  that  which  prevailed  under  the 
People's  party  organization.  It  is  more  subtle  in  its  A^orkings — 
more  deftly  devised — but  if  unimpeded  it  could  not  fail  to  achieve 
results  even  more  nicely  and  effectively  that  the  former  political 
machinery.  It  is  very  true  that  much  would  depend  upon  the 
character  of  the  men  to  whose  management  the  institutions  of 
the  church  should  be  entrusted.  With  some'  only  the  good  of 
the  church  would  be  sought;  but  with  men  of  comprehensive  and 
amlitious  minds,  both  church  and  state  would  be  covered  by 
their  administrations.  There  would  necessarily  be  discrimina- 
tion and  choice;  prejudices  and  preferences  would  enter  into  the 
work  unconsciously;  there  would  be  a  hundred  avenues  and  in- 
ducements to  fraud  and  oppression. 

The  state  is  largely  made  up  of  the  laws,  institutions  and  cus- 
toms which  we  inherit  from  the  past;  it  is  also  constituted  in 
part  by  those  who  hold  positions  to  frame  and  execute  its  laws, 
llie  state  exists  because  of  a  vast  number  of  functions  the  per- 
formance of  which  requires  an  election  to  office,  and  in  most 
cases  a  prior  nomination. 


CASES   AND   PRINCIPLES   IN   CHURCH   AND   STATE.  105 

ANTAGONISM  OF  THE  MANIFESTO. 

Tlie  position  of  the  manifesto  is  that  so  far  as  the  state  exists 
in  its  official  functions  it  must  hold  its  tenure  in  harmony  with 
the  "counsel''  of  the  priesthood;  that  is,  if  the  population  were  all 
Mormon,  as  a  majority  of  the  Utah  population  is,  those  who 
hold  civil  offices,  or  military  either,  would  do  so  in  conformity 
with,  and  in  subordination  to  "counsel."  No  good  Mormon 
would  b^  found  in  office  without  the  prior  authorization  of 
"counstl;'*  for  if  the  manifesto  is  infallible,  he  would  be  a  vio- 
lator of  the  ordinance  of  God,  and  the  church  people  acting  in  a 
civil  capacity  would  be  in  duty  bound  to  vote  against  him. 

Thi'-  "rule"  as  promulgated,  provides  a  circle  within  a  circle — ^a 
wheel  within  a  wheel — and  in  the  last  anaylsis,  a  very  few  minds, 
or  possibly  one  mind,  presses  the  button  and  the  body  of  the 
church  dees  the  rest.  Thus  the  network  of  guidance  and  author- 
ity tends  to  destroy  individuality  and  personal  liberty.  In  this  re- 
gard it  conflicts  with  the  equality  and  liberty  incorporated  in  the 
Declaration  of  Independence. 

The  "principle"  that  vitalizes  the  doctrine  of  priesthood  is  that 
of  theocracy  dispensed  through  descending  gradations  of  priest- 
ly officials.  The  "principle"  that  animates  the  American  system 
is  that  every  man  and  every  woman  is  created  in  the  image  and 
likeness  of  God,  in  virtue  of  which  each  is  a  sovereign  unit  of 
the  state.  These  two  "principles,"  allowmg  that  both  are  genu- 
ine, operate  in  different  spheres  neither  of  which  may  be  made 
subordinate  to  the  other.  In  the  state  each  man  must  be  a  sov- 
ereign actmg  freely,  independently  and  of  equal  right.  There 
must  be  no  hierarchy  in  a  state,  for  every  citizen  is  a  king  and  a 
sovereign.  The  state  must  in  nowise  go  to  the  church  for  its 
right  to  be  or  to  do.  In  a  true  state  no  man  could  be  elected  to 
office,  having  been  "counseled"  thereto  by  the  church;  that  is, 
if  he  held  himself  primarily  at  the  disposal  of  the  church  he 
shijuld  not  be  accounted  worthy  of  the  state. 

Perhaps  the  most  important  thought  written  by  Jefferson  in 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  is  that  of  the  innate  freedom 
and  independence  of  each  human  being.  It  requires  only  a  clear 
realization  of  the  spirit  of  liberty  as  embodied  in  the  Declaration 
of  Independence  to  see  and  feel  that  a  state  receiving  its  officers 
and  hclding  its  tenure  in  accordance  with  the  "counsel"  of  a 
church  is  in  utter  conflict  with  the  genius  of  American  govern- 
ment. There  have  been  times  in  the  past  when  the  church, 
notably  tht  Catholic  church,  has  completely  swallowed 
up     the     state,     even     to     the     literal     putting    of    the     foot 


106  THE   LATE   MANIFESTO   IN    POLITICS. 

of  the  ecclesias^-ical  ruler  upon  the  necks  of  kings.  At 
other  times  and  places  as  in  case  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  of  England, 
and  the  czar  of  Russia  at  the  present  moment,  the  state  has  ab- 
sorbed the  church,  and  ecclesiastical  dignitaries  are  shuffled 
abi'Ut  as  mere  puppets  of  regal  power.  In  such  cases  church 
and  stale  occupy  but  a  single  sphere.  The  lion  and  the  lamb  lie 
down  together  it  is  true,  but  the  lamb  is  inside  the  lion. 


CHAPTER   TENTH. 


SUPPLEMENTAEY  CHAKGES*  BY  LOKENZO  SNOW. 

The  managers  of  the  case  against  Moses  Thatcher  must 
have  had  a  keen  sense  of  the  fact  that  the  consensus  of  public 
opinion  was  against  them  in  the  Thatcher  deposition;-  for  we 
find  them  hunting  about  for  a  subterfuge  to  give  the  semblance 
of  a  reason  for  opening  up  a  magazine  of  obsolete  and  exploded 
charges  against  Thatcher;  and  the  significant  feature  of  it  all  is 
that  their  unwonted  attack  has  been  a  boomerang  that  has 
spread  dismay  among  their  ranks.  Probably  they  did  not  know 
the  full  import  and  history  of  the  matters  with  which  they  were 
dealing.  At  all  events  the  reaction  leaves  them  in  a  far  worse 
condition  than  before.  But  it  is  important  here  to  no:  ice  the 
subterfuge  that  was  employed  to  give  opportunity  for  the  man- 
agers, over  the  name  of  Lorenzo  Snow,  to  amend  their  plead- 
ings and  file  supplementary  charges  in  order  to  stiffen  up 
public  sentiment  against  Thatcher.  And  in  order  to  make  the 
amended  complaint  more  effectual,  it  is  ordered  to  be  read  in 
many  if  not  all  the  ward  churches.  A  letter  is  written  and  a 
few  young  brethren  are  induced  to  adopt  it  as  their  own,  and 
thus  request  Lorenzo  Snow  to  give  the  ''primary  cause  of 
Brother  Thatcher's  lack  of  harmony  with  his  quorum."  It 
seems  that  what  was  refused  to  the  earnest  pleadings  of  Moses 
Thatcher,  was  here  given  out  by  Lorenzo  Snow  to  a  few  young 
men,  apparently  to  gratify  a  mere  curiosity.  Here  is  the  letter 
of  the  young-men: 

Salt  Lake  City,  November  20,  1896. 
Elder  Lorenzo  Snow,  President  of  the  Twelve  Apostles: 

Dear  Brother: — As  there  has  been  much  discussion  over  the  cor- 
respondence between  Moses  Thatcher  and  yourself,  and  some  of  our  own 
people  are  at  sea  in  regard  to  the  primary  cause  of  Brother  Thatcher's 


SUPPLEMENTARY  CHARGES  BY  LORENZO  SNOW.      107 

lack  of  harmony  with  your  quorum,  leading  to  his  excommunication  there- 
from, in  behalf  of  a  number  of  such  persons  we  pen  you  this  communica- 
tion. 

We  are  aware  that  the  difficulty  mainly  rested  with  the  twelve  and 
one  of  its  members,  also  that  when  action  was  taken  in  the  case  there 
was  no  need  of  your  making  further  explanations.  We  can  appreciate 
your  abstinence  from  controversy  on  a  purely  Church  matter  through  the 
public  prints.  But  seeing  that  there  appears  to  be  a  misapprehension  of 
the  facts  in  the  case,  and  that  many  good  people  are  liable,  in  consequence 
of  that,  to  form  incorrect  conclusions,  we  respectfully  ask  you,  if  it  be  not 
inconsistent  with  any  rule  of  the  Church  or  of  the  council  over  which 
you  preside,  to  make  some  public  statement  which  will  serve  to  place  this 
matter  in  its  true  light  before  the  Saints,  and  clear  away  the  mists  which, 
to  some  at  least,  seem  to  surround  the  subject  of  Moses  Thatcher's  de- 
position. As  he  has  given  to  the  world  the  private  correspondence  that 
passed  between  you  and  him  in  a  Church  capacity,  is  it  fair,  even  to  your- 
self and  your  associates,  to  leave  the  matter  in  its  present  condition  and 
open  to  so  much  misconstruction?  If  you  would  make  an  explanatory 
statement  through  the  Deseret  News,  we  believe  it  would  be  highly  es- 
teemed by  many  others,  as  well  as  your  brethren  in  the  gospel. 

Nephi  L.  Morris, 
Arnold  G.   Giauque, 
Arthur  F.  Barnes, 
R.  C.  Badger, 
T.  A.  Clawson. 

PRESIDENT  SNOW'S   ANSWER. 

Salt  Lake  City,  November  30.  1896. 

Messrs.  Nephi  L.  Morris,  Arnold  G.  Giauque,  Arthur  P.  Barnes,  R.  C, 
Badger  and  T.  A.  Clawson: 

Dear  Brethren— In  response  to  your  esteemed  communication  of 
the  20th  inst.,  I  have  determined,  after  conference  with  several  of  the 
Apostles,  to  offer  some  explanations  on  the  case  of  Moses  Thatcher  and 
comments  on  the  correspondence  to  which  you  refer,  through  the  columns 
of  the  Deseret  News. 

The  Apostles  did  not  view  the  publication  of  the  letters  that  passed 
to  and  from  Brother  Moses  Thatcher  and  them  as  calling  for  any  contro- 
versy on  their  part.  Nor  did  they  think  it  a  proper  thing  to  give  those 
ecclesiastical  communications  general  publicity  through  secular  news- 
papers. The  letters  bearing  my  signature  were  not  prepared  with  a  design 
for  publication,  whatever  the  others  might  have  been — and  were  regarded 
as  Church  matters  for  the  consideration  solely  of  the  respective  parties. 
It  is  only  because  those  letters  have  been  given  to  the  public,  and  because 
it  seems,  from  what  you  say,  that  an  improper  impression  has  been  made 
upon  the  minds  of  some  people  thereby,  that  I  comply  with  the  request  to 
meet  some  of  the  statements  they  contain. 

The  evident  purpose  in  publishing  those  communications  was  to  ex- 
cite public  sympathy,  and  the  unnecessary  and  superfluous  appeals  they 
contain  convey  the  imprepsion  that  they  were  concocted  for  that  purpose. 
They  were  not  relevant  to  the  issue  involved.  Moses  Thatcher  was  not  on 
trial  for  his  fellowship.    Specific  charges  were  not  preferred  either  in 


108  THE   LATE   MANIFESTO   IN   POLITICS. 

public  or  in  private.  The  question  was  solely  as  to  his  standing  as  one  of 
the  Apostles,  in  consequence  of  his  lack  of  harmony  with  the  Quorum  of 
the  Twelve  of  which  he  was  a  member.  That  question  he  could  have 
settled  at  any  time  if  he  had  so  desired,  and  that  without  a  formal  trial. 
By  placing  himself  in  harmony  with  his  Quorum,  in  the  spirit  of  humility 
and  conformity  with  its  rules,  of  which  he  was  not  in  ignorance,  he  could 
have  saved  himself  all  the  trouble  and  deprivation  of  which  he  complains. 

THAT  NEW  MANIFESTO. 

In  his  review  of  what  he  calls  his  case,  he  lays  great  stress  on  the 
matter  of  the  declaration  of  principles,  which  he  refused  to  sign  after  it 
had  received  the  endorsement  of  the  First  Presidency,  the  Apostles 
(excepting  himself),  the  seven  Presidents  of  the  Seventies,  the  Patriarchy 
and  the  Presiding  Bishopric,  comprising  the  general  authorities  of  the 
Church.  His  excuse  is  that  he  had  only  about  an  hour  and  thirty  minutes 
in  which  to  consider  it.  Usually  .nen  do  not  require  much  time  to  consider 
a  matter  which  they  have  always  held  to  be  right.  There  was  nothing 
new  in  that  document  as  it  relates  to  Church  discipline.  It  contains  that 
which  has  always  been  an  established  doctrine  of  the  Church.  When  the 
committee  which  prepared  it  submitted  it  to  the  other  Church  authorities, 
they  signed  it  after  reading  without  hesitation  and  without  requiring  time 
to  deliberate.  It  embodies  so  manifestly  a  conceded  and  necessary  rule 
that  every  one  in  harmony  with  the  Church  authorities  accepted  it  at 
once,  and  the  Church  as  a  body  has  received  and  adopted  it  as  an  essential 
rule.  Why  should  Moses  Thatcher  alone,  of  all  the  Church  authorities, 
feel  that  he  could  not  sign  it,  as  he  alleges,  "  without  stultification?"  Was 
not  that  in  itself  evidence  that  he  was  and  had  been  out  of  harmony  with 
his  brethren?  And  are  they  not  men  as  little  disposed  as  any  one  living 
to  stultify  themselves,  or  to  assent  to  anything  wrong  that  is  of  vital  im 
portance  to  them  and  to  the  Church? 

He  charges  that  his  letter  refusing  to  sign  the  declaration  was  "  sup- 
pressed." There  was  no  suppression  in  the  matter  at  all.  The  letter  was 
not  addressed  to  the  Conference  nor  to  the  public.  Out  of  mercy  and 
compassion  to  him  no  reference  was  made  to  his  contumacy  at  the  Apri 
Conference,  but  his  name  simply  dropped  from  the  list  of  authorities  pre- 
sented. How  could  he  have  been  sustained  under  the  circumstances? 
There  are  six  of  the  Twelve  now  living  who  voted  for  his  appointment  to 
the  Apostleship.  Not  one  of  them  would  have  sustained  him  for  that  posi- 
tion if  it  had  been  known  that  he  then  entertained  views  entirely  out  of 
harmony  with  those  of  that  body.  The  letter  addressed  at  that  time  to 
his  associates  was  a  deliberately  composed  communication  showing  that  he 
was  able  to  understand  the  document  which  he  refused  to  sign,  and  his 
prompt  publication  of  that  letter,  in  a  secular  newspaper,  shows  that  he 
had  a  deliberate  intention  to  oppose  the  declaration  and  defy  his  brethren 
who  promulgated  it.  But  if  he  did  not  have  sufficient  time  to  consider 
the  declaration  at  the  April  Conference,  what  about  the  six  months  which 
elapsed  before  the  October  Conference?  Was  not  that  time  enough?  Dur- 
ing that  interval  he  was  visited  by  many  of  his  brethren,  some  of  them 
Apostles,  and  no  change  was  effected,  but  he  failed  even  to  attend  the 
October  Conference,  or  to  manifest  a  disposition  to  conform  to  the  prin- 
ciple of  the  declaration. 


SUPPLEMENTARY  CHARGES  BY  LORENZO  SNOW.      109 

It  is  true  that  he  was  in  poor  bodily  health  during  that  period.  But 
he  was  not  too  ill  to  upbraid  brethren  who  tried  to  impreps  him  with  the 
danger  of  his  position,  nor  to  accuse  some  of  them  of  having  "blanketed 
their  conscience  "  in  signing  the  declaration. 

He  states  in  his  letters  that  he  would  have  attended  the  October  Con- 
ference if  it  had  not  been  for  the  "  assurances  and  reassurances"  he  had 
received  that  nothing  would  be  done  concerning  his  standing  until  his 
health  should  be  restored.  He  then  complains  bitterly  of  the  explanations 
given  to  the  Conference  as  to  his  position  and  seeks  to  convey  the  impres- 
sion that  they  were  a  breach  of  good  faith. 

ASSURANCES  WERE  FULFILLED. 

The  "assurances''  to  which  he  refers  were  faithfully  fulfilled.  He  was 
left  in  statu  quo.  Every  time  it  was  shown  that  the  condition  of  his  health 
would  not  admit  of  his  meeting  with  his  quorum  the  question  of  his  stand- 
ing was  postponed.  But  meanwhile  he  and  his  friends  were  not  slow  to 
talk  about  his  associates  and  to  convey  unwarranted  impressions  concern- 
ing their  course  in  his  case.  So  much  misunderstanding  was  thereby 
created  that  it  became  absolutely  necessary  to  make  some  explanations 
that  the  Latter-day  Saints  might  not  be  deceived.  President  Woodruff 
was  Eo  strongly  impressed  with  this  that  he  addressed  the  Conference  on 
the  subject  and  his  statements  were  endorsed  by  several  of  the  Twelve  who 
followed  him. 

This  was  no  "trial"  of  Moses  Thatcher.  It  was  simply  a  necessary 
explanation  of  his  status.  It  involved  the  question  of  his  lack  of  harmony 
with  the  Church  authorities.  His  claim  that  he  was  publicly  accused  and 
therefore  should  have  a  public  trial  is  astonishingly  absurd.  He  was  not 
accused  in  the  sense  of  a  trial  or  investigation.  The  fact  of  his  lack  of 
harmony  with  the  authorities  was  explained  and  shown  to  be  of  much 
earlier  date  than  his  refusal  to  sign  the  declaration  and  his  engaging  in 
active  politics.  To  place  himself  in  harmony  with  the  Twelve,  or  refuse  to 
do  so,  required  no  "trial"  either  public  or  private.  He  did  neither.  Yet 
the  assurances  given  him  which  he  misconstrues  were  observed  and  his 
"case"  was  not  called  up  untill  he  was  able  to  appear. 

It  was  but  a  few  days  after  the  Conference,  even  if  it  had  entirely 
closed,  before  he  appeared  and  spoije  at  public  meeting  as  though  he  still 
held  the  authority  in  which  he  had  not  been  sustained  at  Conference. 
This  necessitated  the  announcement  from  the  First  Presidency  through 
the  Deseret  News  that  he  had  no  right  to  officiate  in  the  priesthood  while 
in  his  suspended  condition. 

THE  TEMPLE  INCIDENT. 

Notwithstanding  that  announcement,  when  he  chose  to  present  him- 
self to  the  authorities  he  presumed  to  attempt  entrance  to  the  Temple  for 
that  purpose,  and  at  a  time  when  the  First  Presidency  as  well  as  the 
Twelve  met  for  the  consideration  of  other  Church  matters  and  for  holding 
their  prayer  circle.  No  one  could  attend  but  those  of  their  own  body,  nor 
even  enter  the  house  unless  in  good  standing.  No  member  of  the  Church 
without  the  proper  recommend  can  obtain  admittance  to  the  Temple,  no 
matter  how  much  he  may  have  contributed  to  its  erection.  That  would 
cut  no  figure  at  all  in  the  right  of  entrance.  It  is  amazing  that  Moses 
Thatcher  should  attempt  to  intrude  the  boast  of  his  contributions  into  the 


110  THE   LATE   MANIFESTO    IN   POLITICS. 

question  of  entering  the  Temple  of  God  when  not  in  good  standing  and 
full  fellowship. 

His  exclusion  from  the  Temple  he  construes  into  being  "denied  the 
privilege  of  meeting  with  the  quorum,"  No  one  knew  better  than  he  that 
there  was  no  such  denial.  The  assurance  given  him  by  Elder  F.  D.  Rich- 
ards and  others  of  the  quorum  was  proof  of  their  willingness  to  meet  him 
and  their  joy  at  his  manifestation  of  even  a  desire  to  meet  them.  That 
there  were  other  places  and  occasions  when  he  could  properly  have  an  in- 
terview with  his  brethren  he  fully  understood,  and  he  should  have  done 
long  before. 

In  passing  I  will  notice  his  technical  quibble  about  the  closing  of  the 
Temple  against  him  on  October  15th  for  his  disregard  of  my  letter  of 
October  23d,  which  he  says  is  hard  for  him  to  understand.  A  care- 
ful reading  of  my  letter  will  show  that  the  difficulty  is  of  his  own 
manufacture.  What  I  said  conveys  no  such  meaning  as  he  asserts. 
I  said,  "This  being  the  condition  of  affairs  you  were  not  admitted  to  the 
Temple  on  the  forenoon  of  Thursday."  "The  condition  of  affairs"  which 
caused  that  exclusion  is  set  forth  in  the  first  paragraph  of  my  letter,  and 
relates  to  occurrences  before  the  15th.  It  is  true  that  my  letter  of  the  23d 
in  reply  to  his  of  the  16th  is  incidentially  mentioned,  but  only  as  something 
growing  out  of  what  happened  on  the  15th,  and  of  course  was  not  intended 
to  apply  as  a  condition  existing  before  that  date.  This  perversion  of  plain 
language  shows  what  small  evasions  will  be  resorted  to  when  one  gets  into 
the  dark. 

THE  CONFERENCE  ADDRESSES. 

Reference  to  the  conference  discourses  published  in  the  Deseret  News 
was  made  that  Brother  Thatcher  might  know  exactly  what  the  brethren 
eaid,  that  he  might  see  the  necessity  there  was  for  the  people  to  under- 
stand where  he  stood,  and  that  he  might  see  the  need  of  putting  himself 
in  harmony  with  the  Church  authorities. 

It  is  necessary  to  notice  his  complaint  that  he  had  not  been  invited  to 
attend  the  meeting  at  which  final  action  was  taken  in  his  case.  In  his 
letter  dated  November  4:th,  he  says: 

"  I  returned  to  this  city  Thursday — a  week  ago  tomorrow— and  have 
daily  expected  to  hear  respecting  a  time  when  I  could  see  the  brethren 
once  more  together.  No  word  having  reached  me  respecting  that  matter, 
I  adopt  this  means  of  respectfully  asking  you  when  such  meeting  can  be 
arranged.  As  early  a  meeting  as  convenient  will  greatly  oblige. 
Your  brother  in  the  gospel, 

Moses  Thatcher." 

To  this  I  replied,  as  he  has  published,  under  date  of  November  6: 

"  In  accordance  with  your  wishes  for  a  meeting,  I  take  pleasure  in 
appointing  2  o'clock  on  Thursday  next  at  the  Historian's  Office,  upon  which 
occasion  the  quorum  will  be  pleased  to  meet  with  you.  With  kindest  re- 
gards, your  brother  and  fellow  servant, 

Lorenzo  Snow." 

On  tlje  day  thus  appointed  the  Apostles  met  at  the  time  and  place 
thus  designated,  when  they  received  his  lengthy  communication  dated 
November  11,  in  which  he  said: 

"  I  shall  not  trouble  my  brethren  therefore  to  convene  in  a  special 
meeting  named  for  Thursday  at  2  p.  m.  at  the  Historian's  Office." 


SUPPLEMENTARY  CHARGES  BY  LORENZO  SNOW.      Ill 

Thereupon  the  Council  of  the  Apostles  gave  him  one  week  more,  and 
notified  him  that  his  case  would  be  called  up  for  action  at  a  meeting  to  be 
held  in  the  Historian's  Office  at  10  a.  m.  on  Thursday,  the  19th  inst.,  as 
appears  in  my  letter,  published  by  him  with  the  other  correspondence. 

When  that  day  arrived  we  received  this  last  letter  in  which  he  said: 

"As  there  is  to  be  no  trial  of  my  case  and  as  I  am  not  requested  to  be 
present,  I  take  it  to  be  the  purpose  of  considering  my  case,  etc." 

Why  should  there  have  been  any  further  tampering  with  the  case? 
Moses  Thatcher  was  entirely  out  of  harmony  with  his  brethren  the 
Apostles.  He  was  simply  required  to  put  himself  in  accord  with  them  as 
is  required  by  the  Gospel  and  the  order  of  the  councils  of  the  priesthood. 
That  he  declined  to  do.  After  asking  for  a  time  and  place  to  be  appointed 
when  he  could  meet  with  them,  and  in  response  to  that  request  a  time  and 
place  was  set,  and  the  Apostles  came  from  distant  points  for  the  purpose 
of  meeting  with  him,  instead  of  appearing  he  coolly  notified  them  by  letter 
that  he  would  "not  trouble  them  to  convene!"  Then  when  they  gave  him 
another  week  in  which  to  appear,  and  notified  him  that  his  case  would  be 
called  up  for  consideration  and  action,  he  still  treated  the  council  with 
contempt  and  asserted:  "I  am  not  requested  to  be  present." 

That  the  Council  of  the  Apostles  took  the  only  consistent  action  that 
was  left  open  must  be  evident  to  every  Latter-day  Saint  who  has  eyes  to 
see  and  a  heart  to  understand.  Why  Moses  Thatcher  did  not  meet  with 
his  brethren,  after  they  had  assembled  at  his  own  request,  is  best  known 
to  himself.  Notwithstanding  his  past  course  they  were  ready  to  receive 
him  with  open  arms  if  he  had  come  in  the  proper  spirit  and  put  himself  in 
accord  with  them.  As  he  would  not,  they  expelled  him  from  the  priest- 
hood as  they  were  in  duty  bound  to  do. 

GOES  FURTHER  BACK. 

It  should  be  known  that  the  disaffectian  of  Moses  Thatcher  dates 
back  to  a  time  long  before  political  difficulties  could  enter  into  the  matter. 
President  Woodruff  has  stated  publicly  that  Moses  Thatcher  had  not  been 
in  full  harmony  with  his  quorum  since  the  death  of  President  John  Taylor. 
Trouble  was  had  with  him  before  that  time. 

In  1886  he  proclaimed  in  public  discourses  ideas  and  predictions  not 
endorsed  by  his  brethren.  At  Lewiston,  Cache  County,  notes  were  taken 
of  these  utterances  and  published  on  a  fly-leaf.  He  was  subsequently 
written  to  by  President  Taylor,  and  his  answer  is  on  file.  While  he  claimed 
that  he  had  not  been  accurately  reported,  he  gave  his  own  language,  under 
his  own  hand,  to  the  effect  of  predictions  of  events  to  occur  within  five 
years,  which  have  failed  of  fulfillment  and  which  were  founded  on  er- 
roneous interpretations  of  scripture.  He  wrote  for  publication  a  sort 
of  retraction  which  really  took  nothing  back  but  merely  charged  partial 
errors  in  the  report  of  his  extravagant  remarks. 

He  was  out  of  harmony  with  his  brethren  in  relation  to  a  standing 
appellate  high  council,  which  he  claimed  should  be  appointed  and  which 
he  has  never  acknowledged  was  incorrect. 

He  disputed  with  President  Taylor  as  to  the  appointment  of  Presi- 
dent of  the  Logan  Temple  and  contended  for  a  man  of  his  own  selection, 
even  after  the  President  announced  the  appointment  by  revelation. 

His  bearing  with  his  brethren  of  the  Twelve  was  such  that  he  could 
not  brook  dissent  and  resented  their  non-acceptance  of  his  personal  views. 


112  THE   LATE   MANIFESTO   IN   POLITICS. 

When  Wilford  Woodruff's  accession  to  the  Presidency  was  under  con- 
sideration, as  the  proper  successor,  he  expressed  opinions  which  showed 
that  he  regarded  human  smartness  and  business  ability  as  above  that  sim- 
plicity of  character  and  susceptibility  to  divine  impressions  which  are 
notable  in  that  faithful  servant  of  God,  and  objected  that  such  a  man 
could  not  grasp  the  situation  of  affairs  or  cope  with  the  difficulties  arising. 
He  was  overruled  but  persisted  in  his  views. 

BUSINESS  DIFFICULTIES  WITH  PRESIDENT  CANNON. 

When  President  George  Q.  Cannon,  after  the  decease  of  President 
Taylor,  was  in  prison  for  infraction  of  the  anti-polygamy  laws,  Moses 
claimed  that  Brother  Cannon  had  defrauded  him,  and  he  threatened  in 
the  presence  of  President  Woodruff  and  others  of  the  Twelve  to  sue  him 
at  law  and  thus  bring  many  private  affairs  before  the  public  through  the 
courts.  Only  on  being  emphatically  warned  by  President  Woodruff  and 
others  that  such  a  course,  particularly  in  Brother  Cannon's  condition, 
would  result  disastrously  to  him  in  his  Church  position  did  he  desist.  On 
President  Cannon's  release  from  confinement  the  matter  was  fully  investi- 
gated and  it  was  demonstrated  that  instead  of  Brother  Cannon  owing  him 
he  was  in  Brother  Cannon's  debt  to  an  amount  which  he  subsequently  paid. 
For  bis  insults  and  hard  language  towards  Brother  Cannon  he  has  never 
apologized  nor  made  any  amends.  This  incident  is  referred  to  in  President 
Cannon's  absence  from  the  State.  He  has  always  preserved  silence  on  this 
matter  and  did  not  wish  it  to  be  mentioned  against  Brother  Thatcher. 
But  it  is  important  as  showing  Moses  Thatcher's  spirit  and  bearing  to- 
wards his  brethren. 

Brother  Thatcher  makes  great  pretensions  of  devotion  to  the  Church 
and  declares  he  has  "never  shirked  any  responsibility."  The  people  in 
many  of  the  various  stakes  of  Zion  who  have  been  visited  by  the  Apostles 
may  ask  themselves  when  they  have  ever  seen  Moses  Thatcher  at  their 
Quarterly  Conferences  or  other  Church  gatherings. 

MEETINGS  OF  HIS  QUORUM. 

He  has  neglected  the  meetings  of  his  quorum  for  years.  This  was 
not  always  on  account  of  ill-health.  He  was  able,  at  least,  in  the  earlier 
part  of  the  time,  to  attend  to  business  and  pleasure  affairs,  apparently  in 
good  health  and  spirits.  The  roll  book  of  meetings  of  the  Presidency  and 
the  Apostles  shows  that  from  May,  1889  to  April,  1896,  a  period  of  about 
seven  years,  he  was  in  attendance  at  the  regulai;  weekly  meetings  but  33 
times.  There  were  held  277  of  those  meetings,  at  which  President  Wood- 
ruff, though  weighted  down  by  age  and  numerous  cares,  was  present  256 
times.  His  absence  was  always  on  account  of  sickness.  Brother  Thatch- 
er's residence  was  most  of  the  time  in  Logan,  but  the  hour  was  set  so  that 
he  and  others  at  a  distance  could  have  reasonable  opportunity  to  attend. 

Brother  Thatcher's  spirit  has  been  contumacious  and  he  has  been 
self-opinionated  and  arbitrary.  Previous  to  the  dedication  of  the  temple 
his  brethren  labored  with  him  for  many  hours  to  bring  him  into  the 
proper  frame  of  mind  to  unite  with  them  in  that  sacred  ceremony.  His 
condition  was  not  entirely  satisfactory  at  the  close  of  the  protracted  inter- 
view, but  was  accepted  out  of  charity  and  mercy  to  him  that  he  might  not 
be  excluded  from  the  dedication,  with  the  hope  that  the  spirit  of  the 
occasion  would  influence  him  to  thorough  reconciliation.   President  Wood- 


SUPPLEMENTARY  CHARGES  BY   LORENZO  SNOW.  113 

ruflE'e  announcement  of  harmony  among  the  brethren  was  made  with  this 

understanding,  but  has  been  adroitly  turned  by  Brother  Thatcher  to  shut 

off  all  that  occurred  before  that  time,  and  which  would  not  now  be  alluded 

to  but  for  his  own  utterances  and  reference  to  his  pretended  humility  and 

harmony. 

THE  POLITICAL  NOMINATION. 

In  accepting  nomination  for  a  political  office,  which  if  elected  thereto 
would  have  taken  him  away  from  his  ecclesiastical  duties  for  long  periods 
without  consultation  with  his  quorum  and  the  presidency,  he  could  not 
but  have  known  that  he  was  violating  a  requirement  of  hig'i  officials  in  the 
Church.  Yet  he  would  not  consult  with  them,  while  he  wa-^?  able  to  attend 
political  gatherings  and  business  meetings  although  in  poor  health.  Here, 
again  he  was  out  of  harmony  with  his  brethren. 

There  was  no  need  for  any  loss  of  manhood  or  proper  independence  nor 
the  forfeiture  of  any  of  the  rights  of  citizenship.  But  if  he  did  not  value  his 
apostleship  and  priesthood  as  of  the  very  first  consideration  he  was  not 
worthy  to  hold  them,  and  his  subsequent  course  shows  that  he  held  them 
in  great  esteem  in  theory  but  in  very  small  esteem  in  practice.  Fine  words 
and  sympathetic  phrases  do  very  well  to  influence  the  public,  but  they 
count  for  nothing  in  the  face  of  deeds  that  contradict  them,  or  the  failure . 
to  do  that  which  is  so  rhetorically  professed. 

The  standing  and  fellowship  of  Moses  Thatcher  as  a  member  of  the 
Church  has  not  been  brought  into  question,  therefore  there  has  been  no 
trial.  He  has  been  dealt  with  by  his  quorum  for  lack  of  harmony  with 
his  associates,  something  that  was  entirely  within  his  own  power  to  correct 
without  great  exertion  or  much  time.  If  his  standing  in  the  Church  was 
at  stake  specific  charges  would  be  made,  and  he  would  have  to  answer  to 
them  in  the  usual  way,  which  is  not  and  has  not  been  by  public  demon- 
stration. 

What  has  been  done  was  necessary  and  a  duty.  Action  was  not 
taken  until  it  was  certain  that  no  further  delay  would  be  of  any  use  or  ben- 
efit. Moses  Thatcher  has  been  treated  with  greater  consideration  and 
mercy  than  any  other  man  who  has  taken  the  course  which  he  has  pur- 
sued. He  has  been  prayed  for,  waited  upon,  pleaded  with  and  wept  over 
until  his  rebellion  and  contumacy  were  seen  to  be  invincible,  and  he  is  in 
open  hostility  to  regulations  which  the  whole  Church  has  adopted  and 
ratified.  He  could  not  and  cannot  be  any  longer  empowered  to  act  in  the 
authority  of  the  holy  priesthood. 

And  now  let  the  Latter-day  Saints  ponder  upon  the  situation,  and 
take  the  warning  given  by  the  Prophet  Joseph  Smith  as  a  key  to  the 
Church  for  all  time.     It  is  as  follows: 

"I  will  give  you  one  of  the  keys  of  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom.  It  is 
an  eternal  principle,  that  has  existed  with  God  from  all  eternity.  That  one 
who  rises  up  to  condemn  others,  finding  fault  with  the  Church,  saying  that 
they  are  out  of  the  way,  while  he  himself  is  righteous,  then  know  assured- 
ly, that  that  man  is  in  the  high  road  to  apostacy;  and  if  he  does  not  repent 
will  apostatize,  as  God  lives. — History  of  Joseph  Smith,  July  2,  1839." 

In  conclusion  I  repeat  the  words  of  him  who  spake  as  never  man 


"He  that  exalteth  himself  shall  be  abased  but  he  that  humbleth 
himself  thall  be  exalted." 

Your  Brother  in  the  Gospel, 
L0RF.NZ0  Snow. 


MOSES  THATCHER. 


CHAPTER  ELEVENTH. 


A  MASTERLY  VINDICATION. 

The  following  reply  of  Moses  Thatcher  to  the  "Supple- 
mentary Charges"  of  Lorenzo  Snow  is  a  document  of  unusual 
importance,  one  destined  to  be  a  historic  paper  in  the  annals  of 
Utah.  It  is  the  final  word  in  the  Church  controversy,  and  the 
opening  chapter  of  what,  it  is  to  be  hoped,  will  be  an  honorable 
public  career  for  Moses  Thatcher: 

Logan,  Utah,  December  12,  1896. 
Elder  Lorenzo  Snow,  President  of  the  Twelve  Apostles: — 
1  A  Letter  Dear  BROTHER : — Your  recent  letter  written 

that  Demands  for  publication  in  the  Deseret  News  at  the  request 
Reply.  q£  g^Q  young  men  of  Salt  Lake  City,  demands  an 

answer  from  me  in  the  interest  of  fairness,  friends,  family  and 
the  Saints  throughout  the  world.  The  duty  is  a  painful  one — 
so  painful,  indeed,  that  personal  considerations  would  be  a  mo- 
tive insufficient  to  induce  me,  even  on  a  matter  so  vitally 
important  to  me  and  mine,  to  take  up  my  pen  in  self-defense. 

I  have  read,  and  re-read,  your  open  letter  and 
Betrays  l^B.Ye  purposely  delayed  replying  to  it,  hoping  and 

Unaccustomed  praying  that  a  sense  of  right  and  justice  might 
dictate  what  I  write  to  one  holding  the  high  and 
responsible  position  you  occupy  in  the  Church,  and  for  whom  I 
entertain  sentiments  of  profound  respect — no  matter  what  you 
may  think  or  say  about  me.  I  confess  astonishment  not  only 
at  the  letter,  but  at  the  spirit  of  your  communication,  for,  as  I 
have  always  understood  your  disposition,  your  ideas  of  justice 
and  your  love  of  mercy,  that  communication  does  not  appear  to 
your  advantage.  Lorenzo  Snow,  as  I  have  known  him  during 
all  the  years  of  his  presidency  over  the  Quorum  of  Apostles, 
nowhere,  to  my  mind,  appears  in  that  bitter  and  acrimonious 
communication. 


116  THE  LATE  MANIFESTO  IN  POLITICS. 

^,  Political   differences  in  Utah    have   unfortu- 

Made  to  the  nately,  and,  as  I  believe,  unnecessarily,  resulted  in 
Worldihat  criminations  and  recriminations,  and  in  the  resur- 
from  Mr.  rection  of  misunderstandings  long  since  explained 

Thatcher.  ^j.  settled.  Before  their  introduction  I  never  saw 
you  turn  a  deaf  ear  to  pleadings  for  specifications  on  the  part 
of  an  accused  brother.  Nor  is  it  like  you  to  ignore  my  earnest, 
often  repeated  requests  for  charges  against  me,  which  you  fur- 
nished by  the  column  with  evident  alacrity  for  a  public  print, 
in  order  to  gratify  the  apparent  curiosity  of  five  young  men  of 
Salt  Lake  City.  If,  as  you  say,  I  was  not  entitled  to  a  public 
hearing,  as  my  case  was  not  a  public  matter,  why  did  you 
make  public  charges  against  me  in  a  newspaper  when  you  re- 
fused to  give  me  even  an  intimation  of  them  in  private?  It  is 
difficult  for  me  to  understand  why  you  have  publicly  accused 
me  when  privately  you  would  not;  why  you  presented  specified 
charges  against  me  after  my  deposal  instead  of  before;  why  you 
so  readily  granted  the  request  of  the  five  young  men  when  you  so 
persistently  refused  mine ;  why  you  gratified  their  curiosity  and 
that  of  the  public  concerning  an  affair  in  which  you  declared  I 
was  "the  principal  party  interested."  This  treatment,  this  dis- 
crimination, is  difficult  for  me  to  comprehend. 

Nor  can  I  conceive  the  object  of  those  young 
77"  "/i?  1>^/?^*"^  brethren  in  asking  a  f urtherr  explanation  of  the 

News  to  be  conduct  of  your  Quorum  toward  me,  the  entire  cor- 
'^^dWh^t"     respondence  on  the  subject  being  in  their  posses- 

Need  of  sion.     The   Deseret  News   had   already   declared 

Further  officially  that  the  action  of  deposing  me  had  been 

Jtiecisotisjor  zt  f  .^^.  ^  •%       •      t         i 

"inspired,   dictated,  authorized   and  approved   of 

God."  Holding  the  News'  statements  in  view,  it  may  seem 
strange  to  many  of  the  Saints  that  the  young  men  should  ask 
further  reasons  for  my  deposal,  and  stranger  still  that  you 
should  deem  it  necessary  to  furnish  them.  Besides,  the  pub- 
lished correspondence  was  complete.  It  told  its  own  story  of 
the  patience  and  forbearance  which  had  been  shown  me. 

The  appearance  of  those  letters  in  secular 
j^g^;^Q^s  o?  ^^g  newspapers  (and  I  infer  from  your  remarks  that 
^'Church  the  Deseret  News  is  not  secular)   was  probably 

rgan.  brought  about  by  the  direct  personal  attacks  of 

the  News,  which  has  not  appeared  to  be  friendly  to  me  under 
its  present  management.  And  why  should  I  have  gone  to  the 
News  when  its  columns  were  daily  filled  with  misrepresenta- 


A   MASTERLY   VINDICATION.  117 

tions  of  my  conduct  aod  position?  When  it  was  falsely  declaring 
that  1  had  been  pledging  political  support  for  months?  When 
it  was  forcing  me  upon  a  platform  I  had  never  constructed,  and 
attributing  to  me  words  I  had  never  uttered?  But  have  you 
not  seen  even  official  declarations,  from  those  occupying  higher 
positions  than  I  ever  held,  appear  first  in  a  secular  newspaper 
and  afterward  in  the  organ  of  the  Church? 

Why  should  you  feel  called  upon  "to  meet 
Gain  Ground  some  of  the  statements"  contained  in  that  public 
in  Public  correspondence  ?     Were  you  not  satisfied  with  the 

en  imen  .  judgment  of  the  people  as  to  the  merits  of  the 
controversy  ?  Your  side  was  placed  before  them  just  as  fully 
as  it  had  been  placed  before  me.  If  you  believed  a  farther  ex- 
planation was  due,  why  did  you  not  give  it  to  me  when  I 
requested  it  time  and  again? 

Pardon  me  for  quotins:  the  following:  harsh 
7.  The  Public  .        -  i   .. 

jj^Q^g  expression  irom  your  open  letter: 

th^^fhe  ^  ^^^  evident  purpose  in  publishing  those  communica- 

Brethren.  tions  was  to  excite  public  sympathy;  and  the  unnecessary 

and  superfluous  appeals  they  contain  convey  the  impres- 
sion that  they  were  concocted  for  that  purpose . 

Judging  from  the  way  those  appeals  were  treated,  they 
were,  indeed,  "superfluous  and  unnecessary."  Had  I  known 
thau  they  would  have  been  so  regarded,  I  never  would  have 
made  them.  I  will  confess  they  were  appeals,  not  to  the  pub- 
lic, but  to  my  brethren.  They  were  cries  of  anguish  from  a 
heart  racked  with  pain.  They  were  pleas  for  mercy — prayers  for 
light — for  information  as  to  my  offending.  But  why  should  you 
imagine  they  were  published  to  excite  public  sympathy?  Do 
you  consider  that  to  be  the  natural  result  of  their  publication? 
An  appeal  from  one  in  distress,  in  jeopardy,  is  not  "concocted." 
Rather  does  it  not  require  the  deliberation  of  a  trained,  skilled 
and  diplomatic  mind  to  close  the  ears  and  hearts  of  men  against 
such  appeals? 

You  say : 

Easily  ^^^^  During  that  interval,  (A  piil  to  October)  he  was  visited 

Refuted.  by  many  of  his  brethren,  some  of  them  Apostles,  and  no 

change  was  effected,  but  he  failed  even  to  attend  the  Octo- 
ber Conference,  or  to  manifest  a  disposition  to  conform  to  the  principles  of 
the  Declaration.  It  is  true  that  he  was  in  poor  health  during  that  period, 
but  he  was  not  too  ill  to  upbraid  his  brethren  who  tried  to  impress  him 
with  the  danger  of  his  position,  nor  to  accuse  some  of  them  of  having 
'blanketed"  their  conscience  in  signing  the  Declaration. 


118  THE   LATE   MANIFESTO   IN   POLITICS. 

Did  you,  President  Snow,  ever  hear  me  say  anything  of  the 
kind?  Which  of  the  brethren  did  I  upbraid  or  accuse  of 
"blanketing"  his  conscience?  You  do  not  seem  aware  of  the 
fact  that  of  all  the  Apostles  and  members  of  the  First  Presi- 
dency only  one,  Apostle  F.  D.  Eichards,  ever  talked  with  me 
about  the  Manifesto  since  the  day  it  was  presented  to  me  for 
my  signature.  True,  Brothers  Eichards  and  Young  called  one 
day  just  as  I  was  leaving  my  residence  in  Salt  Lake  City  for 
the  depot  with  guests,  and  we  talked  a  few  moments  while  the 
carriage  was  waiting  at  the  door. 

At  another  time  I  said  to  Brother  John  Henry 
John  as  Usual  Smith :  "How  could  you,  knowing  as  you  do  of  my 
Stands  with  work  in  the  Church  for  a  quarter  of  a  century, 
vote  for  my  suspension  simply  because  I  could  not 
see  my  way  clear  to  sign  the  Manifesto?  How  could  you  ad- 
judge me  guilty,  condemn  me  and  execute  your  judgment  all 
within  a  few  hours  and  without  a  hearing?"  He  replied:  "I 
will  not  talk  with  you  about  that,  for  you  are  too  ill,  and  conver- 
sation on  that  subject  will  make  you  nervous."  I  then  said : 
"Which,  Brother  John,  do  you  think  would  make  me  most 
nervous  and  ill,  to  have  the  brethren  humiliate  and  degrade  me 
by  dropping  me  out  of  my  place,  or  talking  about  it  after  the 
deed  was  done."     Said  he:  "I  am  with  my  brethren." 

During  all  those  weary  months,  while  friends 
10.  ^^Sick  and  and  physicians  believed  I  was  on  the  verge  of  the 
Me  NoV  grave,  I  was  administered  to  only  once  by  members 

of  our  Quorum,  although,  day  after  day,  engage- 
ments made  for  that  purpose  were,  for  reasons  unknown  to  me, 
not  kept,  and  after  the  Manifesto  was  returned  to  you  unsigned, 
none  of  the  Apostles,  excepting  the  three  mentioned,  ever  came 
to  my  house  or  visited  me  for  any  purpose  whatever.  I  do  not 
mention  this  by  way  of  complaint,  but  because,  from  the  gen- 
eral tone  and  certain  statements  in  your  letter,  you  do  not  seem 
to  be  fully  acquainted  with  these  facts. 

A   fe-v^  men  holding  less    authority    in    the 
Treasured  Up  Church  called  and  argued  with  me,  and  sometimes 
for  Accusa-      may  have  heard  the  peevish  plaints  of  a  sick  man 
*^^'  which,  it  seems,  were   carefully  delivered  and  pre- 

served, and  with  which  you  are  now  willing  to  reproach  me.  It 
appears  that  every  groan  I  uttered  in  my  pain  and  weakness 
was  borne  away  and  used  to  poison  the  minds  of  those  living  in 
the  light  against  a  weak  and  helpless  brother. 


A  MASTERLY  VINDICATION.  119 

In  this  connection  I  would  like  to  state  also 
and  Duty  of  ^^^^  even  before  the  presentation  of  that  Mani- 
Private  Judg-  festo  for  my  signature  not  one  of  the  brethren 
had  taken  up  a  labor  with  me  concerning  any  of 
the  matters  it  was  made  to  embody.  You  contend  that  I  should 
have  signed  it  simply  and  solely  because  other  officers  of  the 
Church  had  signed  it,  "without  hesitation  and  without  requir- 
ing time  to  deliberate."  I  cannot  see  how  that  statement  adds 
to  the  credit  of  the  document.  Such  matters  demand  deliber- 
ation, and  because  I  always  so  contended  I  am  called  "con- 
tumacious and  obstinate."  It  may  be  that  Elder  B.  H.  Roberts 
signed  it  without  consideration,  but  I  have  been  authoritatively 
informed  that  strong  and  healthy  as  he  was  in  mind  and  body 
several  members  of  the  Quorum  to  which  I  belonged  labored 
with  him  day  after  day  for  weeks  before  he  consented  to  accept 
the  principles  of  absolutism  it  contains.  How  many  of  the 
brethren  deemed  it  necessary  to  waste  their  time  on  me,  though 
I  was  sick  and  near  the  portals  of  death  ?  Not  one.  Yet  they 
expected  me  to  sign  it  when  it  was  presented,  although  you 
say  I  was  considered  "contumacious  and  obstinate."  If  that 
was  my  disposition,  why  was  1  not  labored  with  for  weeks,  or 
why  was  I  expected  to  sign  it  without  such  attention  ?  Did  you 
really  believe  me  "contumacious  and  obstinate?" 

I  do  not  desire  to  be  understood  as  complain- 
13.  Brother       .  v 

Roberts  La-      ^^g  ^^  *^®  short  time  given  me  for  the  considera- 

boriously  tion  of  the  Manifesto— the  hour   and   a   half   at 

Counseled.  .i        i  t  j  j  j.i_ 

noon  on  the  day  my  name  was  dropped  from  the 

list  of  Church  officials.  I  understood  the  Manifesto  then  a§  I 
understand  it  now.  But  when  I  afterward  learned  that  its 
claims  had  been  discussed  for  weeks  by  the  other  members  of 
the  Quorum  of  Apostles — that  a  systematic  presentation  of  its 
grounds  had  been  devoted  to  Brother  Roberts — I  was  led  to 
wonder  if  the  brief  time  allotted  me  was  the  result  of  design 
or  accident. 

You  say  that  "out  of  mercy  and  compassion" 
Qucaitv^^of^^^  the  reasons  for  degrading  me  were  not  given  at 
Mercy  and  the  April  conference.  I  fail  to  see  wherein  I  was 
Pledaesf^^  benefited  by  a  compassion  which  gave  rise  to  so 
many  rumors,  mysterious  hints,  dark  insinuations, 
slanders  and  attacks,  unjust  allusions  and  unfair  comparisons 
which  have  been  strenuously  created  and  disseminated  since 
that  time.  Nor  can  I  appreciate  the  manner  in  which  my  case 
was  left  "in  statu  quo"  by  the  remarks  of  the  brethren  at  the 


120  THE  LATE  MANIFESTO  IN   POLITICS. 

October  conference.  I  had  received  assurances  and  reassur- 
ances that  nothing  would  be  done  or  said  affecting  my  case 
until  I  should  report  myself  ready  for  trial.  You  say:  "The 
assurances  to  which  he  refers  were  faithfully  fulfilled.  He  was 
left  in  statu  quo."  The  average  man  might  be  hard  to  con- 
vince that  his  interests  would  not  be  affected  by  creating  ad- 
verse public  opinion,  by  concerted  and  preconcerted  action  on 
the  part  of  the  jurors  intrusted  with  his  fate  in  prejudging  and 
prejudicing  the  people  against  him.  When  a  tribunal  pro- 
nounces a  man  guilty  and  announces  to  the  world  its  judg- 
ment, has  he  been  left  in  "statu  quo?" 

You  complain  because  I  did  not  for  a  time 
for  Absence      attend  my  Quorum  meetings  as  regularly  as  others 
from  Quorum  had  done.     The  time  to  which  you  call  attention 
ee  tngs.  covers  the  period  of  lingering  illness  from  which 

I  have  now  almost  entirely  recovered.  But  I  do  not  offer  my 
sickness  as  an  excuse  for  absence,  as  you  had  excused  me  from 
all  official  duties  during  a  greater  portion  of  that  time,  advising 
me  to  travel,  to  seek  enjoyment  and  health. 

The  charge  that  I  have  "treated  the  council 
that  Shrink      ^^^h  contempt"  needs  no  answer  but  a  reference 
from  Pub-       to  the  letters  which  passed  between  us.    I  endeav- 
*^*  ^*  ored  persistently,  patiently,  and,  as  I  thought,  re- 

spectfully, to  ascertain  what  my  brethren  held  against  me — 
what  differences  there  were  between  us — in  order  that  we  might 
arrive  at  an  understanding  and  finally  what  their  requirements 
were.  When  I  went  to  the  meeting-place  of  the  Quorum  of 
Apostles  after  being  assured  by  brethren  that  I  would  be  wel- 
come and  that  no  objections  would  be  made,  I  found  the  door 
closed  in  my  face.  From  that  time  on  till  my  deposal  I  pleaded 
for  a  statement  of  the  grievances  against  me  but  dared  not  in- 
trude upon  my  Quorum  again  without  invitation,  as  I  had  no 
desire  to  give  offense. 

I  was  never  aware  that  I  had  no  right  to  speak 
Closed  and  ^^  public  meetings  until  publicly  reprimanded  for 
Also  the  so  doing;  I  did  not  think  I  was  barred  from  the 

emp  e.  Temple  until  its  door  was  closed  in  my  face.    And 

now  you  say  that  I  "presumed  to  attempt  an  entrance  to  the 
Temple."  What  could  I  have  done?  Every  move  I  made  was 
criticised  and  condemned  and  seemed  to  invite  new  forms  of 
censure  and  humiliation. 


A  MASTERLY  VINDICATION.  121 

I  have  no  desire  to  quibble;  but  here  is  a  pas- 
18.  Humiliat-  •  ^   il       i.        i  •  t.    t  j     •      j.         n 

ing  Exercise     ^^S^  ^^  7^^^  open  letter  to  which  I  desire  to  call 

of  Priesthood   your  attention : 
Authority. 

It  was  but  a  few  days  after  the  October  conference, 
even  if  it  had  entirely  closed,  before  he  appeared  and  spoke  at  public  meet- 
ings as  though  he  still  held  the  authority  in  which  he  had  not  been  sus- 
tained at  Conference.  This  necessitated  the  announcement  from  the  First 
Presidency,  through  the  Deseret  News,  that  he  had  no  right  to  officiate  in 
the  priesthood  while  in  his  suspended  condition.  Notwithstanding  that 
announcement,  when  he  chose  to  present  himself  to  the  authorities,  he 
presumed  to  attempt  entrance  to  the  Temple  for  that  purpose,  and  at  a 
time  when  the  First  Presidency,  as  well  as  the  Twelve,  met  for  the  con- 
sideration of  other  church  matters  and  for  holding  their  prayer  circle. 

I  presented  myself  at  the  door  of  the  Salt  Lake  Temple  at 
11  o'clock  a.  m.,  Thursday,  October  15,  1896.  The  meeting 
which  promulgated  the  announcement  you  refer  to  was  then  in 
session.  It  was  not  published  in  the  Deseret  News  until  eve- 
ning, and  was  not  received  by  me  for  at  least  five  hours 
after  my  return  home  from  the  Temple.  You  will  not  deny 
that  these  are  the  facts,  and  yet  you  blame  me  for  "attempting 
entrance  to  the  Temple"  in  disregard  of  an  announcement 
which  had  not  then  been  formulated.  At  no  other  time  did  I 
"attempt  entrance  to  the  Temple"  to  be  refused  admittance. 


This  point  is  in  direct  line  with  your  former 
X9.  Ex-Post  statement  in  our  original  correspondence  to  the 
line.  effect  that,  because  I    had  seemingly  disobeyed 

your  letter  of  the  23d  of  October,  I  was  refused 
admittance  to  the  Temple  on  the  15th,  or  eight  days  before. 
When  I  could  not  understand  that,  you  explained  it  by  saying 
I  was  in  the  dark.  No  doubt  the  same  explanation  will  answer 
in  regard  to  the  paragraph  above  quoted. 


I  did  not  mention  my  last  contribution  to  the 
More  Accept-  Temple  in  the  way  of  a  boast,  but  the  fact  remains 
able  than  the  that  the  Temple  was,  nevertheless,  constructed  with 
funds  contributed  by  the  Saints.  But  when  Presi- 
dent Joseph  F.  Smith  declared  that  I  only  gained  admission  to 
its  dedication  "by  the  skin  of  my  teeth,"  a  statement  your  open 
letter  seemed  to  corroborate,  I  could  not  recall  any  hesitancy  on 
the  part  of  any  one  about  asking  or  receiving  my  donation  dur- 
ing the  period  of  its  construction. 


122  THE   LATE   MANIFESTO   IN  POLITICS. 

Another  paragraph  in  your  letter  is  truly  re- 
21.  The  Bui-  raarkable,  and  especially  wherein  the  public  is 
ter  Shown  Up.  informed  that  "silence"  in  my  interest  has  been 
maintained  by  President  Cannon,  now  absent,  as 
you  say,  from  the  State.  How  far  that  business  transaction 
between  two  members  of  the  Church  has  had  a  bearing  on  my 
affairs,  as  recently  made  public  from  the  pulpit  and  press,  I  can- 
not say;  but  future  developements  may  show  its  relation  to  past 
and  present  conditions.  Its  frequent '^mention  in  garbled  form, 
as  in  this  instance,  and  as  it  has  been  told  in  public  and  private, 
on  highways  and  byways,  shows  that  it  is  no  secret.  And  so  far 
as  I  am  concerned,  there  is  nothing  in  it  that  I  would  have  any- 
body trouble  himself  to  keep  secret.  I  will  endeavor  to  con- 
vince you.  President  Snow,  that  you  have  not  been  well  posted 
on  this  matter.  For  that,  however,  I  attach  no  blame  to  you,  for 
the  story  of  the  Bullion- Beck  is  a  long  one.  I  shall  not  hesitate 
to  face,  willingly,  my  part  of  the  affair.  Here  is  an  extract  from 
your  letter: 

When  President  George  Q.  Cannon,  after  the  decease  of  President 
Taylor,  was  in  prison  for  infraction  of  the  anti-polygamy  laws,  Moses 
claimed  that  Brother  Cannon  had  defrauded  him,  and  he  threatened,  in 
the  presence  of  President  Woodruff  and  others  of  the  Twelve,  to  sue  him 
at  law  and  thus  bring  many  private  affairs  before  the  public  through  the 
courts.  Only  on  being  emphatically  warned  by  President  Woodruff  and 
others  that  such  a  course,  particularly  in  Brother  Cannon's  condition, 
would  result  disastrously  to  him  in  his  Church  position,  did  he  desist. 
On  President  Cannon's  release  from  confinement  the  matter  was  fully  in- 
vestigated, and  it  was  demonstrated  that  instead  of  Brother  Cannon's 
owing  him,  he  was  in  Brother  Cannon's  debt  to  an  amount  which  he 
subsequently  paid.  For  his  insults  and  hard  language  toward  Brother 
Cannon,  he  has  never  apologized  nor  made  any  amends.  This  incident  is 
referred  to  in  President  Cannon's  absence  from  the  State.  He  has  always 
preserved  silence  on  this  matter  and  did  not  wish  it  mentioned  against 
Brother  Thatcher.  But  it  is  important  in  showing  Moses  Thatcher's 
spirit  and  bearing  toward  his  brethren. 

The  closing  sentence  no  doubt  satisfies  the  public  as  to  the 
reason  for  bringing  the  matter  up.  I  am  not  sorry  you  men- 
tioned it,  as  it  gives  me  an  opportunity  to  correct  the  rumor 
which  has  been  well  circulated  among  the  people.  In  answer  to 
a  letter  written  by  President  Woodruff  on  the  5th  of  December, 
1888,  on  this  very  topic,  I  wrote  December  7th,  two  days  later^ 
making  the  following  statement  of  my  position : 

**In  conclusion,  you  will  permit  me  to  say  that  I  have  no 
disposition,  and  never  have  had,  to  take  advantage  of  any  of  my 
brethren  in  the  position  in  which  Brother  Cannon  is  placed;  for 


A   MASTERLY  VINDICATION.  123 

I  regret  his  imprisonment,  I  believe,  quite  as  sincerely  as  any 
of  my  brethren.  Upon  this  point  I  hardly  think  that  Brother 
Cannon  himself  entertains  any  doubt."  For  the  present,  at 
least,  there  is  no  need  to  go  into  further  details  regarding 
Ballion-Beck  matters,  except  to  correct  your  assertion  that 
*'  instead  of  Brother  Cannon  owing  him,  he  was  in  Brother  Can- 
non's debt."  I  can  think  of  no  explanation  so  brief  and 
authentic  as  a  copy  of  the  receipt  I  gave  him  in  settlement  of 
our  financial  differences.     It  reads: 

Know  all  men  by  these  presents,  that  I  do  hereby 
fh  f^^^^^P^  acknowledge  the  receipt  from  President  George  Q.  Cannon, 
%r  Itself  °^  ^^  °^^®^  signed  by  him,  and  dated  August  5, 1889,  on 

Secretary  George  Reynolds  for  the  transfer  to  myself  o^ 
twenty -three  hundred  and  sixty-eight  16-63rd  (2368  16  63)  shares  of  the 
"  pooled  stock  "  of  the  Bullion-Beck  and  Champion  Mining  Company,  and 
that  I  have  received  all  the  dividends  declared  and  paid  by  said  company 
on  the  said  2368  16-63rd  shares,  as  shown  by  the  books  of  the  company, 
less  one-fourth,  or  25  per  cent,  on  all  dividends  declared  and  paid  by  said 
company  since  September  1,  1888.  The  said  25  per  cent,  having  been  paid, 
as  lam  informed,  to  the  Bullion- Beck  and  California  Mining  Company. 

This  receipt  is  intended  and  shall  operate  as  in  full  of  all  demands 
and  claims  by  myself,  heirs  and  assigns  against  President  George  Q.  Cannon 
on  account  of  said  2368  16-63rd  shares  of  stock  when  the  same  shall  have 
been  transferred,  on  surrender  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Company,  of  the 
proper  stock  certificates  upon  which  said  transfer  may  be  made,  and  is  in 
full  for  the  dividends  thereon,  as  specified  herein. 

Moses  Thatcher. 

Salt  Lake  City,  Utah,  September  24, 1889. 

Those  shares,  for  which  I  paid,  represented  a  value  to  me 
at  that  time,  exceeding  $25,000 — an  amount  I  did  not  feel  able 
or  willing  to  lose.  My  anxiety  about  it  was  natural,  if  not 
pardonable. 

And  now  let  me  call  your  attention  to  another  astounding 
assertion  in  your  open  letter  of  information  to  the  young  men. 
You  say: 

In  1886  he  proclaimed  in  public  discourses  ideas  and 
23.  An  predictions  not  indorsed  by  his  brethren.    At  Lewiston, 

that  Ends  All  ^^®^®  county,  notes  were  taken  of  his  utterances  and  pub- 
Contradiction.  lished  on  a  fly-leaf  He  was  subsequently  written  to  by 
Prpsident  Taylor,  and  his  answer  is  on  file.  While  he 
claimed  that  he  had  not  been  accurately  reported,  he  gave  his  own  lan- 
gmage,  under  his  own  hand,  to  the  effect  of  predictions  of  events  to  occur 
within  five  years,  which  have  failed  of  fulfilment,  and  which  were  founded 
on  erroneous  interpretations  of  Scripture.  He  wrote  for  publication  a  sort 
of  retraction  which  really  took  nothing  back,  but  merely  changed  partial 
errors  in  the  report  of  his  extravagant  remarks. 

Not  one  word  uttered  by  me  at  Lewiston  on  the  occasion 
referred  to  partook  of  the  nature  of  a  prophecy  as  coming  from 


124  THE   LATE   MANIFESTO   IN   POLITICS. 

me;  nor  did  I  predict  anything  whatever.  I  stated  my  belief 
upon  numerous  topics,  but  predicted  nothing.  I  quoted  some- 
what extensively  from  the  books  of  revelation,  held  by  us  as 
orthodox,  and  also  from  the  history  of  the  Prophet  Joseph 
Smith.  I  was  not  and  could  not  be  held  responsible  for  long- 
hand reports  of  what  I  said,  nor  for  type-written  or  printed 
slips  said  to  have  been  multiplied  and  circulated  among  the 
people.  Besides,  it  is  well  understood  by  the  Saints  that  the 
sermons,  even  of  Apostles,  are  not  regarded  as  doctrine.  Never- 
theless, I  have  constantly  endeavored  to  avoid  teaching  anything 
erroneous  or  out  of  harmony  with  the  revelations  of  the  Lord. 

While  in  Mexico,  in  1886,  I  was  written  to  by  Presidents 
Taylor  and  Cannon  regarding  this  matter,  and  in  reply  I  stated, 
in  substance,  what  I  had  said  in  Lewiston.  Of  course,  I  could 
not  remember  the  exact  words  I  had  used,  but  I  closed  my 
letter  as  follows: 

"  If,  in  your  view,  there  is  anything  in  these  remarks  erro- 
neous, contrary  to  recorded  revelation  and  history;  or  contrary 
to  the  spirit  of  inspiration  and  revelation  in  you;  or,  if  their 
utterance  by  me  was  premature  or  imprudent,  do  me  the  kind- 
ness at  your  earliest  convenience  to  point  the  same  out,  and 
suggest  the  means  best  calculated  in  your  judgment  to  correct 
the  same,  should  the  inclosed  notice — (which,  if  you  think  best, 
can  be  sent  to  the  News  for  publication) — be  considered  in- 
sufficient to  stop  the  multiplication  and  circulation  among  the 
Saints  of  erroneous  reports  of  my  remarks  as  heretofore  men- 
tioned." 

The  "notice"  was  apparently  satifactory,  as  it 
^N  Ucft^AU    ^^^  published  in  the  Deserei   Weekly  News  of 
December  1,  1886,  as  follows: 

NOTICE. 

Any  printed  or  written  docjument  circulated,  or  that  may  be  circu- 
lated among  the  Saints  of  God,  as  a  report  of  any  sermon,  or  part  of 
sermon,  sermons  or  parts  of  sermons;  or  of  any  private  or  public  remarks 
said  to  have  been  made  by  me,  are  unauthorized  unless  personally  revised 
by  me,  or  written  over  my  signature.  And  the  making  and  circulation  of 
any  such  unauthorized  report  is  without  my  sanction  and  without  my 
consent.  Moses  Thatcher. 

In  the  same  issue  the  News  commented  edi- 
25.  TheDes-      .      •  n  n  ^^ 

eret  News  tonally,  as  follows: 

Thatcher.  AN  UNAUTHORIZED  PUBLICATION. 

In  another  column  will  be  found  a  notice  from  Elder 
Moses  Thatcher  of  the  Council  of  the  Apostles.    We  direct  general  atten- 


A   MASTERLY   VINDICATION.  125 

tion  to  it  because  there  has  been  a  great  deal  of  comment  over  some  re- 
marks attributed  to  him,  which  have  been  copied  and  circulated,  and  lately 
have  been  printed  and  distributed  amon^  the  Saints.  It  is  very  unfair  to 
take  this  course  unauthorized,  and  we  consider  such  proceedings  worthy 
of  severe  censure.  Those  who  have  printed  and  distributed  the  alleged 
extracts  from  a  sermon  delivered  by  Elder  Thatcher  in  Cache  county, 
some  time  ago  have,  in  our  opinion,  exceeded  their  right,  and  those  who 
rely  upon  the  purported  remarks  as  authentic  and  to  be  discussed  as  pro- 
phecy or  doctrine,  may  be  led  into  error,  as  the  report  thus  disseminated 
is  without  authority  of  the  speaker.  We  are  pleased  to  receive  the  notice 
from  Elder  Thatcher,  and  cheerfully  give  it  a  prominent  place  in  our 
columns. 

Subsequent  to  the  year  1886  no  further  corn- 
ice. Digging  plaint  was  made  until  the  appearance  of  your  open 
ChargFs.^  letter  ten  years  later,  and  as  no  additional  require- 
ments were  made  of  me,  I  had  a  right  to  believe 
the  matter  long  since  adjudicated.  No  one  at  any  time  ever  in- 
timated to  me  in  any  way  that  this  was  cherished  secretly 
against  me  by  any  of  my  brethren.  Candidly,  President  Snow, 
what  is  there  in  all  this,  that  in  any  way  can  be  construed  as  a 
justification  for  the  unkind  comments  you  have  made  upon  the 
circumstance?  Your  statements  are  calculated  to  injure  me  in 
the  estimation  of  many  people  who  may  have  read  your  letter 
and  condemned  me  without  remembering  or  having  read  the 
Deseret  News  of  December  1,  1886.  Surely  you  would  not  in- 
tentionally do  me  an  injury. 

You  say  further: 
27.  An  Eccle- 
siastical He  disputed  with  President  Taylor  as  to  the  appoint- 
Tangle  Un-       ment  of  president  of  the  Logan  Temple,  and  contended  for 
a  man  of  his  own  selection,  even  after  the  President  an- 
nounced the  appointment  by  revelation. 

The  truth  of  this  matter  is  made  plain  by  the  action  of 
President  Taylor  in  setting  me  apart  on  the  same  day  as  one  of 
the  eounselors  of  the  President  of  the  Logan  Temple.  Presi- 
dent Taylor  would  not  have  introduced  discord  in  the  Temple, 
and  had  I  contended  against  him  that  would  have  been  the 
effect .  I  would  not  have  been  made  third  ofloicer  in  that  sacred 
place  if  I  had  been  in  such  open  rebellion  as  you  depict.  Pres- 
ident Taylor  was  my  guest  in  Logan  at  the  time  the  president 
of  Logan  Temple  was  named.  On  the  morning  of  the  day  the 
appointment  was  made,  President  Taylor  came  down  stairs,  and 
before  breakfast  stated,  in  the  presence  of  witnesses,  that  he 
felt  impressed  to  appoint  M.  W.  Merrill  president  of  the  Logan 
Temple,  and  asked  me  what  I  thought  of  it.  I  replied  that  it 
was  a  good  selection;  that  he  might  search  the  Stake  over  and 


126  THE   LATE   MANIFESTO   IN    POLITICS. 

not  find  a  man  better  adapted  to  the  position.  And  I  gave  as 
my  reasons  that  Brother  Merrill  was  financially  well  to  do  and 
could  afford  to  give  to  the  work  his  time  and  attention ;  that  he 
was  secretive  and  methodical  in  his  habits.  President  Taylor 
said  he  was  pleased  to  hear  me  say  so.  I  never  at  any  time,  or 
in  any  place  opposed  the  appointment,  but  was  continued  third 
officer  in  that  Temple  till,  by  the  action  of  my  quorum,  I  was 
deprived  of  all  priestly  offices. 

Although  on  this  point  you  make  a  very  posi- 
28.  Explana-  ^^^^  charge  against  me,  you  may  have  this  matter 
fute  Charges,  confused  with  the  selection  of  a  President  for  Cache 
Stake.  In  my  absence  from  Conference  in  Salt 
Lake,  from  which  I  was  excused  by  President  Taylor  on  account 
of  illness  in  my  family,  Elder  C.  O.  Card  was  chosen  Stake 
President  to  succeed  Bishop  Preston,  who  had  been  called  to  the 
office  he  now  holds.  A  few  days  later  I  was  informed  by  a  mem- 
ber of  my  Quorum  as  to  the  action  taken  in  the  matter  of  the 
Cache  Stake  Presidency,  and  my  opinion  was  asked  about  it.  I 
stated  that  since  Elder  Card  had  been  unanimously  chosen  I 
acquiesced.  Later  on,  an  effort  was  made  to  remove  President 
Card,  which  movement  I  opposed.  I  took  the  ground  that, 
while  Brother  Merrill  was  the  stronger  character,  I  would  op- 
pose the  removal  of  President  Card  as  his  appointment  was 
generally  known  among  the  people,  and  his  summary  dismissal 
was  sure  to  result  in  his  irreparable  injury.  I  only  mention 
this  matter  because  there  is  no  foundation  for  complaint  in  the 
other  incident,  and  you  may  have  confused  the  two.  I  cite  this 
as  a  possible  reason  for  your  charge  because  I  have  no  desire  to 
quibble. 

Here  is  another  of  your  specific  charges: 

When  Wilford  Woodruff's  accesBion  to  the  Presidency  was  under 
consideration,  as  the  proper  successor,  he  expressed  opinions  which  showed 
that  he  regarded  human  smartness  and  business  ability  as  above  that 
simplicity  of  character  and  susceptibility  to  divine  impressions  which  are 
notable  in  that  faithful  servant  of  God,  and  objected  that  such  a  man 
could  not  grasp  the  situation  of  affairs  or  cope  with  the  difficulties  arising. 
He  was  overruled,  but  persisted  in  his  views. 

To   my  mind  there  never  was  any   question 
Another  about  the  "proper  successor"  to  President  Taylor. 

Charge  that  ^    I  did  not  regard  it  as  a  debatable  matter,  for  I 
fws!^  ^"^'''*'  always   held   President   TVoodruff    as  the  logical 
successor  to  President  Taylor.     I  maintained  this 
at  the  time,  and  have  since  testified  to  its  propriety  on  many 


A   MASTERLY   VINDICATION.  127 

occasions.  I  have  always  held  that,  with  the  death  of  a  Presi- 
dent, dies  the  authority  of  his  coanselors  as  counselors;  and  the 
supreme  authority  of  the  Church  is  then  vested  in  the  Quorum 
of  Apostles.  Upon  the  death  of  President  Taylor,  Wilford 
Woodruff,  as  the  head  of  the  leading  Quorum  of  the  Church, 
was  therefore  the  leading  officer  in  the  Church. 

In  my  view,  no  one  had  a  right  to  assume  his 
to  Proprieties,  authority  or  issue  addresses  to  the  Latter-Day 
Saints  ignoring  him.  Yet  an  address  was  issued 
which  did  not  deign  to  mention  President  Woodruff  or  any  of 
the  Apostles.  Had  my  name  been  signed  to  it  you  might  well 
accuse  me  of  attempting  to  oppose  the  accession  of  President 
Woodruff,  but  my  name  was  not  there.  If  there  was  a  contest 
between  human  smartness  and  simplicity  of  character  for  the 
Presidency,  I  assure  you  my  preferences  were  for  the  latter. 
Simplicity  of  character  is  an  ornament  to  any  position,  although 
it  is  often  subservient  to  "human  smartness." 

You   make   this    general    charge   against   my    temper   or 
disposition : 

His  bearing  with  his  brethren  was  such  that  he  could  not  brook  dis- 
sent, and  resented  their  non-acceptance  of  his  personal  views. 

I  have  always  tried  to  be  honest,  careful,  con- 
denceof  siderate  and  conscientious  with  my  brethren.     I 

Thought  confess  that  I  have  had  my  personal  views  on  al- 

Insubordina-  iiiost  every  question  that  came  up.  I  had  thought 
t'^on.  I  -vvas   entitled  to  them.     Had  I  entertained  the 

slightest  doubt  of  my  right  in  the  Quorum  to  my  opinions  I 
would  never  have  given  the  six  brethren  to  whom  you  refer  the 
opportunity  to  vote  me  an  apostleship.  As  it  was,  I  protested 
part  of  three  days  before  giving  my  consent  to  President  Tay- 
lor. But  if  I  ever  resented  the  non-acceptance  of  my  views  on 
any  question  where  I  had  been  accorded  the  right  to  present 
them,  I  do  not  recall  it. 

And  now  I  come  to  what  appears  to  be  the 

32.  The  Real  ^hief  reason  for  my  suspension  and  subsequent 
Onevancewas   ,  ,      .        _,.  t.-     i  nr      •£    ..  j    •      -i 

Refusal  to        deposal,  viz. :  The  political  Manitesto  read  in  the 

Sign  the  April  Conference.     I  regard  this  as  the  main  dif- 

ference between  us,  because  of  the  space  you  give 
it  in  your  open  letter;  and  because  President  George  Q.  Cannon 
said  plainly  to  Elder  B.  H.  Koberts  that  it  was  not  right  to  cir- 
culate other  charges  about  me  as  my  name  would  not  have  been 
dropped  had  I  signed  the  Manifesto;  and  because  a  leading 


128  THE  LATE  MANIFESTO   IN   POLITICS. 

Apostle  declared  that,  within  three  days  from  my  refusal  to 
sign,  I  would  have  been  brought  to  trial  had  my  health  per- 
mitted; also  because  I  was  never  publicly  or  privately  accused 
of  the  other  offenses  you  charge  until  after  its  presentation  for 
my  signature;  and  last,  because  at  the  Logan  High  Council 
meeting  President  Joseph  F.  Smith  gave  that  as  the  reason  for 
my  suspension.  You  say  "there  was  nothing  new  in  that  docu- 
ment as  it  relates  to  Church  discipline;"  that  "it  contains  that 
which  has  always  been  an  established  doctrine  of  the  Church :" 
and  that. "usually  men  do  not  require  much  time  to  consider  a 
matter  which  they  have  always  held  to  be  right." 

Had  my  views  relating  to  this  subject  harmon- 

33.  Pledges  ^ged  with  your  statements  there  would  have  been 
and  Laws  .      "^ 

Arrayed  no  hesitancy  on  my  part  m  signing  that  instru- 

J^ainstthe  ment,  or  accepting  this  rule  of  discipline.  Had  I 
understood  that  is  was  simply  an  old  and  estab- 
lished doctrine  of  the  Church  I  would  have  given  no  attention 
to  the  previously  published  declarations  of  the  presiding  Quo- 
rum of  the  Church  respecting  the  absolute  political  liberty  and 
individual  responsibility  of  the  citizens  of  Utah.  And  I  be- 
lieve that  perfect  freedom  of  political  action  unrestrained  by 
fear  of  ecclesiastical  punishment  is  essential  under  our  Repub- 
lican form  of  Government.  This  principle  is  so  well  established 
in  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  in  the  National  Constitu- 
tion and  in  the  Constitution  of  our  own  State,  that  it  needs  no 
argument  to  sustain  it.  Could  I  have  accepted  as  a  fact  your 
statements  I  would  have  saved  myself  the  distress  that  has  fol- 
lowed my  course  regarding  the  Manifesto  of  October,  1890, 
which  was  generally  considered  and  is  still  regarded  as  the 
first  public  and  effective  movement  toward  securing  State- 
hood for  Utah. 

But  my  vote   was  sincere;   and  so   it  was  a 

34.  Covenants  year  later  when  the  authorities  and  Saints  of  the 
FM  Presi-  ^  Church,  in  General  Conference  assembled,  pledged 
dency  and  themselves  as  individuals,  and  as  a  people,  to  this 
Peop^?  Government,  that  the  members  of  their  Church 

should  he  untrammeled  in  all  eivil  concerns; 
when  it  was  declared  that  there  was  no  foundation  or  excuse  for 
the  statement  that  Church  and  State  were  united  in  Utah,  or 
that  the  leaders  of  the  Church  dictated  to  the  members  in  poli- 
tical matters;  and  that  whatever  appearance  of  Church  domin- 
ation there  might  have  been  in  the  past,  nothing  of  the  kind 
would   be  attempted   in  the   future.     I   sincerely  believed  in 


A   MASTERLY  VINDICATION. 


129 


ttese  declarations  and  the  subsequent  official  declarations  of 
the  authorities  of  the  Church  on  this  subject.  On  the  18th  day 
of  March,  1892,  the  First  Presidency  of  the  Church  declared, 
over  their  official  signatures: 

We  have  no  desire  to  interfere  in  these  (political)  matters,  but  pro- 
claim that,  as  far  as  we  are  concerned,  the  members  of  this  Church  are 
entirely  and  perfectly  free  in  all  political  matters. 

In  a  leading  editorial  the  Deseret  Evening  News  reaffirmed 
the  position  of  the  authorities  as  stated  in  their  public  declara-. 
tions,  and  added: 

The  public,  however,  must  not  expect  that  a  leading  churchman 
shall  become  a  political  eunuch  because  of  his  ecclesiastical  position.  He 
is  as  much  a  citizen  with  ail  the  powers  and  liberties  of  a  citizen  as  if  he 
were  a  layman  or  an  infidel. 

And  the  views  expressed  by  the  First  Presi- 

35.  The  Times  Jency   in   the   celebrated    Times   interview   must 
Interview.  *'  .  .i  .i.        « 

bear  a  portion  of  the  responsibility  for  the  senti- 
ments so  thoroughly  grounded  in  me.  I  call  your  attention  to 
the  following  extracts  from  the  answers  carefully  prepared  by 
them: 

"Does  the  Church  claim  the  right  to  dictate  to  its  members  in  poli- 
tical matters?" 

"The  Church  does  not  claim  any  such  right." 

"That  being  true,  are  we  to  understand  that  the  Church  will  not 
assert  any  right  to  control  the  political  action  of  its  members  in  the 
future?" 

•'This  is  what  we  wish  to  convey  and  have  you  understand.  As  offi- 
cers of  the  Church,  we  disclaim  the  right  to  control  the  political  action  of 
the  members  of  our  body." 

"Do  you  believe  that  it  is  the  wish  of  the  Mormon  people  to  unite 
with  the  great  National  parties  and  to  conduct  politics  in  this  Territory  as 
they  are  conducted  in  all  other  States?" 

"That  is  the  impression  we  have  received  from  conversation  with 
the  men  among  us  who  take  the  greatest  interest  in  political  matters." 

"Is  there  any  reasons  why  the  members  of  the  Church  should  not  act 
freely  with  the  National  parties  at  all  times?" 

"We  know  of  no  reason  why  they  should  not." 

"Is  there  any  foundation  for  the  charge  that  the  Mormon  leaders  are 
now  engaged  in  a  political  conspiracy  to  secure  political  power  for  the 
Church?" 

"There  is  not  the  least  ground  for  any  such  statement.  We  are  not 
engaged  in  any  conspiracy  of  this  character." 

"The  opponents  of  party  division  on  National  lines  declare  that  they 
want  evidence  of  the  sincerity  of  the  Mormon  people.  The  Times  would 
ask  you  to  state  whether  the  declarations  of  sincerity  on  the  part  of  those 
leaders,  who  have  been  before  the  public,  reflect  your  views  and  meet  with 
your  approval?" 


130  THE   LATE   MANIFESTO    IN   POLITICS. 

"Those  declarations  express  our  views  and  have  our  entire  ap- 
proval." 

"What  greater  evidence  can  be  asked  than  that  which  has  already 
been  given?  It  has  been  asserted,  in  addition,  that  the  people  were  gov- 
erned by  the  Priesthood  in  political  matters.  This  is  now  disproved  by 
the  dissolution  of  the  People's  party  and  the  union  of  its  members  with 
the  two  National  parties.  What  could  possibly  be  gained  by  the  action  of 
the  people  if  they  were  not  sincere?  If  the  elements  of  sincerity  were 
wanting,  such  a  movement  would  result  in  entire  demoralization." 

If  I  could  have  looked  upon  these  grave  and 
36.  Inviola-  solemn  declarations  differently  I  might  have  been 
Pledges.  ^  spared  the  pain  and  humiliation  following  my 
failure  to  sign  what  you  say  has ,  "always  been  a 
doctrine  of  the  Church."  If  this  were  well  established  and 
generally  understood  to  be  "a  doctrine  of  the  Church,"  was  not 
its  reissuance  in  documentary  form  wholly  unnecessary?  You 
ask: 

Why  should  Moses  Thatcher  alone,  of  all  the  Church  authorities,  feel 
that  he  could  not  sign  it,  as  he  alleges,  without  stultification?  Was  not 
that  in  itself  evidence  that  he  was  and  had  been  out  of  harmony  with  his 
brethren?  And  are  they  not  men  as  little  disposed  as  any  one  living  to 
stultify  themselves,  or  to  assent  to  anything  wrong  that  is  of  vital  import- 
ance to  them  and  to  the  Church? 

I  could  not  sign  that  Manifesto  because  I  had 
57.  Honesty  is  indorsed  the  others  heretofore  quoted,  and  because 
Policy^.  -t  could  not  reconcile  this  last  one  with  those  made 

by  my  file  leaders  and  ecclesiastical  supporters 
between  1890  and  the  date  of  Utah's  admission  into  the  Union. 
I  must  be  permitted  to  suggest  that  my  fellow  members  of  the 
Quorum  to  which  I  once  belonged  can  define  better  than  any 
one  else  their  views  of  right  and  wrong  and  their  ideas  of  what 
constitutes  "stultification,"  but  nevertheless,  like  myself,  they 
are  subject  to  human  weaknesses  and  human  errors.  As 
students  of  history  each  citizen  must  determine  how  long  any 
people  can  prosper  under  the  practice  of  punic  faith,  secretly 
carried  into  effect  or  openly  avowed.  The  declarations  of  per- 
fect political  freedom  to  all  the  Saints  are  just  as  binding  to-day 
as  they  were  before  we  obtained  Statehood,  and  it  is  the  duty  of 
every  citizen  of  Utah  to  so  regard  them. 

And  now,  having  shown  by  quotations  from 

38.  Sustained   unquestioned  authoritative  sources  why  I  should 

hy'-'Counser    not,  without  stultification,  sign  the  political  Mani- 

e^ce.  festo,  I   am  bound  to  stand    where  counsel  and 

conscience  have  placed  me;  for,  with  other  citizens 


A   MASTERLY   VINDICATION.  131 

of  Utah,  I  was  bidden  "to  attach  myself  to  the  party  of  my 
choice  and  then  be  true  to  that  party." 

While  doing  that  I  have  constantly  endeavored  to  show, 
upon  every  proper  occasion,  that  respect  and  honor  due  my 
ecclesiastical  superiors.  I  had  thought  that  there  was  room  in 
Utah,  as  elsewhere,  for  a  citizen  to  do  his  whole  duty  to  the 
State  without  interfering,  in  the  least  degree,  with  his  obliga- 
tions to  the  church  of  which  he  might  be  a  member. 

The  views  respecting  non-union  of  Church  and 

39.  Iiidepend-  State  are  those  I  have  held  and  openly  advocated 
andState!^^^    ^^^   more  than  a  quarter  of   a  century.     Recent 

occurrences  have  intensified  rather  than  modified 
them,  and  I  now  comprehend  better  than  heretofore  the  wisdom 
expressed  in  that  part  of  our  State  Constitution  relating  to  the 
absolute  separation  of  civil  and  religious  matters.  And  while 
the  State  is  bound  to  protect  the  church  in  the  fullest  possible 
religious  freedom,  the  church  must  not  attempt  directly  or  in- 
directly to  dominate  in  civil  or  political  affairs. 

As  Latter- Day  Saints  we  are  doubly  bound  to 

40.  Mormon  *^^^  cognizance  of  this.  Loyalty  to  the  Govern- 
Doctrine  on  ment  protecting  us  demands  it,  and  the  law  of  the 
Church  and  t  j  •  'j.  t  j.  £  i.*  co 
State.  Lord  requires  it.  I  quote  trom  section  58,  para- 
graph 21,  page  219,  Book  of  Doctrine  and  Coven- 
ants: 

Let  no  man 'break  the  laws  of  the  land,  for  he  that  keepeth  the  laws 
of  God  hath  no  need  to  break  the  laws  of  the  land. 

Again,  from  section  98,  paragraph  4  to  9,  inclusive,  page  342. 

And  now,  verily  I  say  unto  you  concerning  the  laws  of  the  land,  it  is 
my  will  that  my  people  should  observe  to  do  all  things  whatsoever  I  com- 
mand them;  and  that  the  law  of  the  land  is  constitutional,  supporting  that 
principle  of  freedom  in  maintaining  rijjhts  and  privileges,  belongs  to  all 
mankind,  and  is  justifiable  before  Me;  therefore,  I,  the  Lord,  justify  you, 
and  your  brethren  of  My  Church,  in  befriending  that  law  which  is  the  con- 
stitutional law  of  the  land;  and  as  pertaining  to  the  law  of  man.  Whatso- 
ever is  more  or  less  than  these  cometh  of  evil. 

I,  the  Lord  God,  make  you  free,  therefore  you  are  free  indeed;  and 
the  law  also  maketh  you  free;  nevertheless,  when  the  wicked  rule,  the 
people  mourn. 

.  .  There  is  no  room  here  for  comment.     It  holds 

of  Patriotism  ^^  ^^  ^^®  silken  warp  and  woof  of  liberty  and  love 
and  Prosper-  woven  in  the  Almighty's  loom  of  truth  and  justice. 
^  ^'  Planting  my  feet  upon  that  divinely  inspired  plat- 

form, and  laying  upon  its  altar  honor,  fortune,  and,  if  necessary, 
life  itself,  I  look  anxiously  but  hopefully  forward  to  the  day 


132  THE   LATE    MANIFESTO   IN   POLITICS. 

when  petty  jealousies,  envious  hatred  and  malicious  accusations 
shall  be  deeply  buried  beneath  mountains  of  peaee,  prosperity 
and  happiness  resting  permanently  in  Utah,  upon  the  wide  tol- 
eration and  good  will  of  her  inhabitants  toward  all  creeds  and 
classes  throughout  the  world.  Should  I  live  to  witness  one  such 
day — the  beginning  of  a  series  that  shall  not  end — the  memory 
of  pains,  afflictions,  tears  and  sighs  shall  pass,  even  as  a  dream 
at  the  dawn  of  a  new  day. 

Utah  pioneers — the  aged  and  venerable — Utah's  brave  sons 
and  daughters,  deserve  such  a  happy  consummation. 

And  what  is  there  in  human  requirement  or 

42.  A  Record  divine  injunction  to  prevent  me  from  humbly  try- 
Work^^^  ing  to  devote  the  remainder  of  my  days  to  the 

cause  in  which  I  have  spent  nearly  forty  years?  It 
is  true  there  are  some  of  the  Stakes  in  Zion  whose  good  people, 
as  you  state,  I  have  never  visited  at  their  homes.  But  it  is 
equally  true  that  nearly  half  my  time  since  I  became  a  member 
of  the  Church  has  been  spent  upon  missions  of  various  kinds. 
During  a  period  of  six  years  I  crossed  the  line  into  Mexico 
some  twenty-three  times,  and  for  quite  a  long  period  my  annual 
travels  covered  from  15,000  to  20,000  miles  a  year.  There  are, 
I  believe,  some  members  of  the  quorum  to  which  I  once  had  the 
honor  of  belonging,  who  have  never,  to  my  knowledge,  been  on 
a  mission  at  all.  But  I  would  not  infer  from  that  they  have 
neglected  the  duties  of  their  calling. 

As  I  have  already  stated,  I  understood  the 

43.  Candid  Manifesto  at  the  time  it  was  handed  me  for  ap- 
the^Manife^o.  proval,   just   as   I  understand  it  now.      While  it 

ostensibly  appeared  not  to  restrict  the  liberties  of 
the  people,  yet  there  was  no  limitation  to  its  application,  and  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  nearly  every  male  member  of  the  Church 
holds  some  office,  and  as  there  has,  as  yet,  been  no  public 
decision  announced  as  to  the  officers  to  be  controlled  by  it,  there 
have  arisen  disputes  and  differences  of  opinion  as  to  its  intent. 
This  being  true,  and  the  danger  being  that  it  could  be  applied 
to  restrict  the  liberties  of  the  people,  I  cannot  sustain  it.  I 
thought  then,  as  I  think  now,  that  such  a  course  would  be  a 
stultification.  I  had  never  dreamed  that  a  condition  would 
arise  in  my  life  where  I  could  not  serve  God  fully  and  yet  yield 
my  complete  allegiance  to  my  country  and  to  my  State.  The 
spirit  of  the  Manifesto,  as  it  appealed  to  me,  was  in  violent 
antagonism  to  all  I  had  believed  and  publicly  proclaimed  for 


A   MASTERLY   VINDICATION.  133 

many  years,  and  I  eould  not,  and,  so  far,  have  not  been  able  to, 
bring  myself  to  a  point  where  I  believed  I  should  yield  my 
political  judgment  to  any  set  of  men,  however  praiseworthy 
their  intentions. 

The  position  taken  by  me  in  political  affairs 
44.  By  Birth  was  one  that  I  could  not  alter.  •  Through  my  veins 
^PatrioT^^  ^^^  ^^'•'^  them  for  generations  has  been  sifted  a 
blood  that  acknowledged  the  supremacy  of  the 
people  only  in  civil  affairs.  Because  of  this  it  was  easy  for  me 
to  understand  and  accept  the  principles  of  Christ  as  explained 
by  our  Church,  which,* as  I  understand  them,  accord  the  right 
of  freedom  and  grant  the  free  agency  of  man  before  God  and 
among  men.  And  it  is  because  these  rights  are  accorded  men 
under  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  as  accepted  by  Latter-day  Saints, 
that  I  have  yielded  obedience  to  the  Gospel,  have  labored  for  it, 
and  love  it  for  the  labor  I  have  given  it. 

This  assertion  may  not  be  accepted  by  you, 
Actuating^  but  such  activity  as  I  have  shown  in  politics  has 
Hirri  in  been  caused  by  an  anxiety  to  preserve  the  reputa- 

o  I  ica  ije.  ^.^^  of  my  file  leaders  when  they  gave  assurances 
of  political  honesty  among  the  Saiuts,  for  there  were  intima- 
tions— and  they  are  well  known — that  in  pledging  political  free- 
dom to  the  people  of  Utah,  the  authorities  were  insincere  in 
their  declarations.  My  unwillingness  to  take  part  in  Democratic 
campaigns,  in  face  of  the  course  of  my  Eepublican  brethren, 
was  one  of  the  grounds  on  which  it  was  asserted  that  the  Church 
authorities  had  broken  faith.  While  T  have  loved  Democracy, 
because  to  me  its  name  embodies  all  of  civil  liberty,  yet  I  did 
not  want  to  take  an  active  part  in  politics  because  of  my  poor 
health,  and  because  I  did  not  deem  it  wise  for  one  holding  my 
position  in  the  Church  to  become  aggressive  in  the  division 
movement.  Yet,  against  my  own  judgment,  in  defiance  of  the 
demands  of  my  health,  and  that  it  might  not  be  said  of  the  First 
Presidency  that  their  pledges  were  given  to  deceive,  I  made 
some  political  speeches. 

For  the  same  reason — having  in  mind  the 
46.  Binding  honor  of  the  people  and  the  reputation  of  the 
Manifesto.  ^^  Church  leaders  and  against  my  solemn  protest — I 
consented  that  my  name  should  be  used  as  a  Sen- 
atorial candidate..  For  this  act  I  was  taken  to  task  at  a  priest- 
hood meeting.  When  the  Manifesto  was  presented  to  me  it 
appeared  to  my  mind  as  a  command  on  all  to  recognize  the 


134  THE   LATE   MANIFESTO   IN   POLITICS. 

right  of  the  Church  authorities  to  control  political  concerns;  it 
meant,  so  far  as  I  was  concerned  a  recantation  of  the  principles 
I  had  for  years  advocated — a  receding  from  the  ground  I  had 
occupied  during  the  division  movement,  and,  above  all,  it  made 
me  feel  that  I  would  be  untrue  to  myself. 

I  do  not  claim  that  I  cannot  be  wrong.  But 
PowerLodged  ^^^^  ^^^  ^^S^^  I  have,  the  Manifesto  (applied  as 
in  the  Mani-  its  construction  will  allow,  or,  as  it  would  be  inter- 
preted by  men  whose  personal  ambitions  might 
control  and  subvert  their  sense  of  right, )  could  be  operated  to 
the  injury  of  the  State. 

If,  as  I  hold,  the  people  have  enough  intel- 
Must  be  Ex-  lige^ce  to  deserve  citizenship,  then  they  have 
alted  to  True  sufficient  intelligence  to  become  acquainted  with 
^'  the  responsibilities  of  citizenship,  and  they  have 
no  more  right  to  yield  their  judgment  in  respect  of  the  exer- 
cise of  the  franchise  than  have  any  set  of  men  to  attempt  to 
control  that  judgment. 

Whatever  the  cost,  with  the  knowledge  now 
form  true  to  guiding  me,  I  must  still  stand  where  I  have  stood 
Jefferson  and  for  years.  My  whole  life  and  its  work  contradict 
the  charge  that  I  could  seek  office  on  a  platform 
antagonistic  to  any  church.  I  should  oppose  any  man  who 
stood  upon  such  a  platform.  I  did  say  that  if  the  voters  of  the 
State  of  "young  Utah"  believed  I  represented  principles  they 
deem  deserving  of  recognition,  and  was,  therefore,  tendered  the 
United  States  Senatorship,  I  would  accept.  For  the  information 
of  those  interested,  it  must  be  understood  that  I  am  a  Democrat, 
with  all  the  word  signifies.  As  a  Democrat,  I  hold  it  a  duty  for 
every  citizen  to  enjoy  the  privileges  conferred  upon  him  by  our 
Government,  and  that  it  is  given  to  no  man,  to  no  corporation, 
and  to  no  body  of  men  to  control  the  citizen  in  the  exercise  of 
his  franchise. 

I  believe  in  that  Democracy  which  declares  for  equal  and 
exact  justice  to  all,  with  special  privileges  to  none. 

I  am  for  a  Jeffersonian  government,  in  which,  so  far  at 
least  as  legislation  makes  to  that  end,  there  shall  be  no  ex- 
tremely rich  and  no  abjectly  poor.  I  favor  the  principle  of  an 
income  tax. 

I  am  for  the  money  of  the  Constitution  as  interpreted  in 
the  Democratic  platform  adopted  at  Chicago  this  year. 

I  am  for  a  tariff  that  will  realize  the  amount  necessary  to 


A  MASTERLY  VINDICATION.  135 

conduct  the  Government  without  running  it  into  debt  in  time* 
of  peace;  but  that  tariiff  must  be  so  levied  and  so  adjusted  that 
its  burdens  and  advantages  shall  be  borne  and  shared  alike  by 
all  industries  and  by  all  parts  of  our  common  country. 

I  am  with  the  State  Constitution  in  the  declaration  that 
there  shall  be  an  absolute  separation  of  church  and  state;  that 
the  state  shall  not  control  the  church,  nor  the  church  encroach 
on  the  prerogatives  of  the  state,  and  to  this  end  I  have  endorsed 
and  still  endorse  the  declarations  of  the  Democratic  Reconvened 
Convention  of  a  year  ago. 

I   invite   neither   the  support  nor  the  opposi- 

50.  True  to       sition  of  the  Church.     It  has  no  concern  in  poli- 

hoth  Church      ,  •     -t  .  rnu  v.  jt  £  r\ 

and  State.         tical  issues,     itie  members  ot  my  rormer  (Quorum 

have  deemed  it  expedient  to  deprive  me  of  my 
priesthood.  If  I  discuss  their  action,  it  is  as  a  Church  member. 
Asa  citizen  and  a  Democrat,  I  concede  their  right  to  discipline 
me  for  any  cause  whatever.  As  a  member  of  the  Democratic 
party,  as  a  citizen,  I  deny  their  right  or  their  intention  to  inter- 
fere with  my  politics,  the  threat  of  the  Deseret  News,  as  the 
Church  organ,  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 

In  conclusion  I  desire  to  say  that  I  do  not 
^Ben  Adirri's  complain  of  the  treatment  accorded  me,  nor  do  I 
Name  led  all     murmur  at  the  humiliation  to  which  I  have  been 

ill  p  7*p^f  ^ 

subjected,  but  I  cannot  think  the  threatened  ex- 
communication from  the  Church,  as  intimated  in  some  quarters, 
can  be  seriously  entertained.  Am  I  to  be  driven  out  of  the 
Church  because  of  the  Manifesto?  I  shall  try  and  live  the  re- 
ligion of  our  Savior.  I  want  to  live  and  die  among  my  brethren 
and  friends.  I  desire  to  do  my  duty  to  my  Church.  I  wish  my 
children  to  observe  the  principles  of  the  Gospel,  that  they,  too, 
may  desire  to  live,  die  and  be  buried  by  the  side  of  their  father, 
when  they  shall  reach,  on  the  hillside,  a  final  place  of  peace  and 
rest. 

With  sentiments  of  esteem,  I  am,  as  heretofore,  your 
brother  in  the  Gospel, 

Moses  Thatcher.    . 


EEMAEKS  ON  FOKEGOING  ADDRESS. 

The  foregoing  paper  of  Moses  Thatcher  is  highly  meritor- 
ious in  many  respects.  It  was  written  hurriedly  by  him  after 
having  spent  a  week  in  overhauling  letters  and  papers  in  search 
of  the  documents  which  he  has  presented  in  his  defense.  Not- 
withstanding hasty  composition  his  letter  expresses  his  thought 
and  argument  in  a  scholarly  and  elegant  style;  his  logic  is 
thoroughly  pertinent  and  unanswerably  conclusive;  his  tone  in 
relation  to  the  Church  is  pathetc  and  respectful ;  his  attitude 
toward  the  State  is  statesmanly,  intelligent  and  truly  patriotic. 
His  political  creed  is  full  to  the  brim  with  the  magnetism  of 
civil  liberty;  his  manhood  is  cast  in  the  mould  of  American  in- 
dependence; his  heart  is  vitalized  with  the  spirit  that  immor- 
talized Jefferson  and  Lincoln. 

No  confession  of  political  faith  could  be  more  timely  or 
effective  under  the  circumstances.  By  the  remarkable  aggress- 
iveness of  the  last  letter  of  Lorenzo  Snow;  by  its  unwarrantable 
and  unseemly  digging  up  of  dry  bones  and  exploded  charges; 
by  its  needlessly  acrimonious  bitterness;  by  the  weakness,  in- 
vidiousness  and  triviality  of  its  allegations;  by  its  ruthless  dis- 
regard of  the  plighted  faith  of  the  First  Presdency  and  the 
whole  Church;  by  its  authoritative  and  supercilious  tone  of  com- 
mand over  the  political  sphere  of  the  citizen;  by  its  inquisito- 
rial assumption  of  disciplinary  power — by  all  these  outcroppings 
of  pontifical  domination  rather  than  Christian  brotherhood, 
Moses  Thatcher  has  been  driven  into  an  exhibition  of  moral 
and  statesmanly  qualities  which  might  otherwise  have  remained 
hidden. 

He  has  made  no  attack  on  either  the  Mormon  Church  or 
its  discipline.  He  has  simply  stood  as  an  unbroken  phalanx 
upon  the  principles  of  democracy  enunciated  in  the  Declaration 
of  Independence,  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  the 
State  of  Utah,  and  more  recently  in  the  platform  of  the  Recon- 
vened Convention,  Oct.  22,  1895.  If  the  Church  or  any  mem- 
ber of  the  Church  feels  that  an  assault  has  been  made  upon  the 
doctrine  or  discipline  of  the  Mormon  faith,  it  is  a  mistaken 
thought.  If  there  is  any  trouble,  it  is  wholly  and  solely  due  to 
the  fact  that  certain  leading  officials  have  put  the  Church  on 
the  track  of  Civil  Liberty;  and  as  the  car  t)f  human  progress 


A  MASTERLY  VINDICATION.  137 

moves  onward,  the  Ohurcli  is  liable  to  have  its  unpatriotic  rules 
of  discipline  crushed  under  the  resistless  wheels. 

Moses  Thatcher  is  not  antagonizing  the  Church  or  any  rule 
of  the  Church,  when  he  declines  to  renounce  his  political 
agency;  he  is  merely  performing  his  part  as  a  free  citizen;  he  is 
carrying  out  in  good  faith  the  declarations  of  the  Reconvened 
Convention.  He  is  truly  fulfilling  the  pledges  made  by  the 
authorities  and  membership  of  the  Mormon  Church. 

Whatever  the  outcome  of  Moses  Thatcher's  career,  whether 
he  be  overwhelmed  in  the  warefare  headed  by*the  "Church 
organ,"  or  achieve  recognized  leadership  in  the  party  which  has 
now  most  nobly  declared  for  the  principles  of  Jefferson;  what- 
ever the  result,  he  is  a  factor  in  Utah  history,  and  doubtless  an 
instrument  in  the  hands  of  All  Merciful  God  for  promoting  the 
welfare  of  the  people  of  Utah  and  the  entire  inter-mountain  re- 
gion. There  can  he  no  doubt  that  some  of  the  leaders  of  the 
Mormon  Church  have  in  their  hearts,  either  consciously  or  un- 
consciously, to  dominate  the  State. 

Mr.  Thatcher  has  long  been  an  avowed  patriot.  He  has 
never  held  his  religion  as  a  means  of  extinguishing  the  state. 
He  has  always  given  both  church  and  state  an  independent 
recognition.  When  the  pledges  of  the  past  half-dozen  years 
were  made,  he  held  them  and  ratified  them  without  "mental 
reservation.''  He  was  as  earnest  in  behalf  of  the  State  as  he 
was  in  behalf  of  the  Church.  And  all  his  troubles  have  come 
from  this  earnestness  and  fidelity. 

With  this  sincerity  and  rectitude  of  character,  with  the  at- 
tainment of  a  leading  position  in  the  Church,  with  a  large  share 
of  love  and  respect  on  the  part  of  his  people,  with  a  large  fol- 
lowing of  friends  and  acquaintances  who  trust  and  honor  him 
for  his  innate  kindness  and  rectitude  of  heart,  with  unusual 
talents  and  a  native  resoluteness  and  buoyancy  of  character — 
with  these  se^yeral  endowments,  no  one  can  be  pointed  out  in 
Utah  so  well  qualified  to  influence  his  Mormon  brethren  and 
lead  them  into  the  pathway  of  Civil  Liberty,  and  guard  them 
against  those  tendencies  which  if  unimpeded,  will  encroach  up- 
on*the  State  and  keep  Utah  embroiled  with  internal  discord  and 
create  perpetual  friction  with  neighboring  states  and  the  gen- 
eral government. 

It  seems  hardly  necessary  to  emphasize  the  completeness  of 
his  refutation  of  the  numerous  charges  made  against  him  in 
Lorenzo  Snow's  letter.  Some  of  them  are  trivial ;  all  of  them 
would   have   been   waived  as   mere   fictions  of  gossamer,  had 


138  THE   LATE   MANIFESTO  IN  POLITICS. 

Moses  Thatcher  yielded  to  his  Quorum  and  his  superiors  the 
right  to  dictate  his  political  agency  by  "Counsel." 

But  see  how  completely  the  main  charges  are  answered,  and 
even  turned  as  a  boomerang  against  his  accusers !  What  is  left 
of  the  Cannon  business  matter  except  the  clear  indication  that 
he  would  have  lost  all  his  Bullion-Beck  stock  had  he  not  reso- 
lutely claimed  his  property  at  the  hands  of  an  ecclesiastical 
management  that  would  have  construed  a  trust  into  a  "  dedica- 
tion" and  a  "dedication"  into  ownership f 

And  as  t(5  Church  service,  look  at  Moses  Thatcher's  won^ 
derful  record  of  travel — hundreds  of  thousands  of  miles — hi& 
long  absences,  the]  disabilities  of  poor  health,  his  large  money 
contributions,  his  unremitting  labors  for  the  cause  of  Christ  a& 
he  understands  the  principles  of  the  Gospel. 

And  as  to  other  charges,  such  as  the  Appellate  High 
Council  Court,  the  appointment  of  the  President  of  the  Logan 
Temple,  the  Chief  Presidency  of  Wilford  Woodruff,  contumacy, 
non-submission,  arbitrariness,  and  suchlike;  in  the  light  of  the 
foregoing  reply,  they  all  fade  away  as  the  baseless  fabric  of 
a  dream!  And  there  is  not  one  of  those  accusing  "brethren" 
that  does  not  know  and  feel  that  if  he  were  in  want,  either  of 
temporal  sustenance  or  spiritual  consolation  and  sympathy^ 
he  could  go  to  Moses  Thatcher  and  be  met  with  open  arms  and 
generous  heart;  the  past  would  be  forgotten,  and  naught  but 
human  kindness  and  Christian  charity  would  govern  his  con- 
duct. It  seems  a  pity  that  those  "brethren"  who  prepared  the- 
supplementary  charges  for  Lorenzo  Snow  to  adopt,  should 
th'.nk  it  necessary  to  ransack  the  English  language  to  find 
words  of  vituperation  with  which  to  chastise  Moses  Thatcher 
for  things  that  they  knew  were  simply  "trumped  up;"  and  all 
this  in  order  to  divert  attention  from  the  real  point  of  dis-^ 
satisfaction — the  refusal  to  sign  the  Manifesto!  Has  not  B. 
H.  Koberts  stated  that  George  Q.  Cannon  said  that  Moses 
Thatcher  should  be  charged  with  this  offense  only  and  nothing 
else?  Will  Mormon  brethren  be  blind?— or  will  they  open 
their  eyes  and  see?  This  is  a  matter  serious  enough  to  com- 
mand individual  and  unbiased  attention.  Do  not  relinquish 
your  birthright  of  freedom,  of  individuality,  of  personal  iden- 
tity. Know  for  yourself  and  judge  for  yourself,  just  as  you 
have  to  bear  your  own  burdens  and  be  judged  for  your  own 
deeds. 

There  is  only  one  issue  in  all  this  case — the  Manifesto  with 
its  rule  of  counsel  providing  a  clever  piece  of  machinery  where- 


A  MASTERLY  VINDICATION.  139 

by  the  Chief  Authorities  of  the  Church  can  control  politics 
within  the  State  of  Utah,  and  to  a  considerable  extent  without, 
if  they  so  desire.  The  foregoing  address  of  Moses  Thatcher  is 
chiefly  valuable  in  meeting  this  issue  in  a  manly,  unambiguous 
and  statesmanly  manner.  His  mind  and  heart  are  sincerely 
and  unselfishly  wrought  into  the  issue,  and  he  speaks  in  a  way 
that  must  challenge  the  admiration  of  every  lover  of  liberty  ! 

Of  all  the  prominent  Mormon  churchmen  Moses  Thatcher 
is  now  the  one  that  stands  squarely  for  an  honest  fulfillment  of 
the  pledges  of  the  Church! 

Of  all  the  leading  officials  he  is  the  one  that  stands  squarely 
on  the  platform  adopted  hy  the  Reconvened  Convention! 

Of  all  the  Mormon  High  Priesthood  Moses  Thatcher  is  the 
one  that  stands  for  the  principles  of  Jefferson  and  Lincoln  as 
the  American  people  understand  those  principles ! 

May  God  add  His  merciful  guidance  and  abundant  good- 
ness to  the  end  that  Moses  Thatcher  —  a  humble  instru-^ 
ment  in  His  Omnipotent  hand — may  be  the  means  of  giving  to 
Utah  a  thorough  establishment  in  the  principles  of  Civil 
Liberty  and  Individual  Independence! 


5     810t>- 


